o«- 


a: 
OQ 

•— « 

uj 

w 
w 

(X 


z 

K 

O 

J 
o 

o 
h 

OQ 

(X 
W 

5 

D 


•*> 


e^ 


•*> 


IP 

^5Sk 


"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony.*'    Isa. 


BY     REV.     WILLIAM     NEVINS,    D.    D. 

Late  Pastor  of  a  Church  in  Baltimore. 


PUBLISHED    BY   JOHN   S.    TAYLOR, 
Theological  and  Sunday  School  Bookseller, 

BRICK    CHURCH    CHAPEL, 
Opposite  the  City  Hall. 

1836. 


D.  Fanihnw,  Printer, 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1836,  by 
RUFUS  L.  NEVINS,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court 
of  the  Southern  District  of  New- York. 


CONTENTS. 


. 

1.  Sufficiency  of  the  Bible  as  a  Rule  of  Faith  and 

Guide  to  Salvation,     ------  7 

2.  The  Source  of  Heresies,     -----  10 

3.  Private  Interpretation, 11 

4.  Popery  Unscriptural,           -----  15 

5.  Evil  of  believing  too  much, 18 

6.  The  Nine  Commandments,  21 

7.  Catholic  hostility  to  the  Bible,        -        -        -        -  25 

8.  Something  for  the  Rev.  Mr.  H.    - 

9.  Distinction  of  Sins  into  Mortal  and  Venial,    -        -  33 

10.  The  Deadly  Sins, 35 

11.  A  Religion  without  a  Holy  Spirit,          ...  37 

12.  Infallibility, 40 

13.  The  Keys, 44 

14.  The  Head  of  the  Church, 47 

15.  The  power  to  forgive  Sins, 51 

16.  A  Catholic  Book  reviewed,  56 

17.  Review  of  the  Catholic  Book  continued,         -        -  60 

18.  The  Pope  an  Idolater, 65 

19.  Charles  X.  an  Idolater,         , 69 

20.  Idolatiy  near  home,     ------  73 

21.  Praying  to  Saints,           ------  76 

22.  Specimens  of  Catholic  Idolatry,          ...  80 

23.  More  Specimens  of  Catholic  Idolatry,                    -  85 

24.  Image  Worship, 89 

25.  Relics, 94 

26.  Seven  Sacraments, 100 

27.  Transubstantiation,         -        -       -       -        -        "  H 

28.  Half  a  Sacrament, 105 

29.  Extreme  Unction,           ..»---  109 


4  CONTENTS. 

No-  Page. 

30.  Doing  Penance, 112 

31.  The  hardest  Religion, 116 

32.  More  about  Penance,    -        -        -        -        -        -120 

33.  A  Fast-day  Dinner,            -  122 

34.  The  Mass, 125 

35.  More  about  the  Mass, 130 

36.  The  Host, 136 

37.  Priests, 140 

38.  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy, 144 

39.  A  Holier  state  than  Matrimony,        ...  146 

40.  Auricular  Confession,           .....  148 

41.  A  Mistake  Corrected 151 

42.  Purgatory,     - 152 

43.  More  about  Purgatory,      .....  156 

44.  A  Strange  Thing, 158 

45.  Canonizing  Saints, 161 

46.  General  La  Fayette  not  at  rest,    -        ...  165 

47.  Prayers  for  the  Faithful  Departed,  170 

48.  An  Improvement, 175 

49.  The  Duke  of  Brunswick's  Fiftieth  Reason,        -  178 

50.  The  Duke's  Seventh  Reason,         -        -        -        -  181 

51.  The  Duke's  Eleventh  Reason,            -        -        -  187 

52.  Beauties  of  the  Leopold  Reports,           ...  190 

53.  Beauties  of  the  Leopold  Reports,  194 

54.  Partiality  of  the  Church  of  Rome,        -        -        -  196 

55.  Supererogation,          ---...  200 

56.  Convents, 204 

57.  Mr.  Berrington  and  Mrs.  More,         ...  207 

58.  A  new  method  of  exciting  Devotion,    -       -       -  212 


The  lamented  author  of  the  following  articles  had  long 
mourned  over  the  influence  of  Romanism,  as  essentially  a 
Political  rather  than  a  religious  institution — attracting  men 
oy  its  splendid  and  imposing  exterior,  to  the  neglect  of  that 
spirituality  of  heart,  without  which  no  man  can  "  see  the 
kingdom  of  God."  He  had  made  repeated  endeavors  to 
engage  what  he  considered  abler  pens  in  exposing  its  ab- 
surdities ;  and  at  length,  as  a  means  of  reaching  the  greatest 
number  of  minds,  commenced  the  insertion  of  brief  mis- 
cellaneous articles  bearing  on  the  subject  in  a  widely  circu- 
lated weekly  newspaper — the  New- York  Observer — using 
the  signature  M.  S.  the  finals  of  his  name.  In  familiarity 
of  style,  kindness  and  cheerfulness  of  manner,  and  plain 
common  sense,  they  are  adapted  to  secure  the  attention  and 
carry  conviction  to  the  heart  of  the  general  reader;  while 
their  richness  of  thought  and  clearness  and  conclusiveness 
of  argument  will  render  them  not  less  acceptable  to  mature 
and  cultivated  minds.  Finding  the  reception  they  met,  it 
was  the  design  of  the  author  to  comply  with  requests  from 
numerous  sources  entitled  to  his  regard,  by  himself  (when 
the  series  should  have  been  somewhat  further  extended) 
embodying  them  in  a  volume ;  but  the  failure  of  his  health 
and  the  early  close  of  his  valuable  life  prevented  the  fulfill- 
ment of  that  design.  They  are  now  given  to  the  public  in 
accordance  with  general  suggestions  of  the  author,  but  es- 
sentially in  the  form  in  which  they  at  first  appeared. 


1.    The   Sufficiency  of  tlie   Bible  as  a  Rule  of  Faith 
and  Guide  to  Salvation. 

This  is  the  great  matter  in  controversy  between  Pro- 
testants and  Roman  Catholics.  We  say  the  Bible  is 
sufficient.  They  say  that  it  is  not.  Now,  suppose  tjiat 
Paul  the  apostle  be  permitted  to  decide  between  us. 
We  are  agreed  to  refer  the  matter  to  him.  Can  our 
opponents  object  to  this  reference?  Let  Paul  then  be 
consulted  in  the  only  way  in  which  he  can  be,  viz. 
through  his  acknowledged  writings.  It  is  agreed  on  all 
hands  that  he  wrote  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy. 
Well,  in  the  third  chapter  of  that  epistle,  and  at  tfee 
15th  verse,  he  writes  to  Timothy  thus :  "  And  that 
from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation." 
That  the  Greek  is  here  correctly  translated  into  Eng- 
lish, any  scholar  may  see. 

Here  then  we  have  what  Paul  wrote,*  and  I  cannot 
believe  that  he  would  write,  in  a  letter  to  Timothy,  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  capable  of  being  known  by  a 
child,  and  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  and  then 
say,  to  be  handed  down  by  tradition,  that  they  are  so 
obscure  and  abstruse  that  one  can  make  nothing  out 
of  them. 

But  what  did  Paul  write  to  Timothy  about  the  Holy 


8  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

Scriptures  ?  He  reminds  him  that  he  had  known  them 
from  a  child,  that  is,  he  had  been  acquainted  with  them 
so  far  as  to  understand  them  from  that  early  age.  Now, 
either  Timothy  was  a  most  extraordinary  child,  of 
which  there  is  no  proof,  or  else  the  Holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the  New,  so  far  as  the 
latter  was  written  and  recognized  at  the  time,  are  in- 
telligible to  a  child.  I  see  not  how  this  conclusion  can 
in  any  way  be  evaded.  If  the  child  of  Eunice  could 
and  did  know  them,  why  may  not  my  child  and  your 
child,  and  any  child  of  ordinary  understanding  ?  And 
what  do  we  want  more  for  a  rule  of  faith,  than  a  Bible 
wtyich  a  child  can  understand?  The  Bible  then  can- 
not be  insufficient  as  a  rule  of  faith,  through  any  want 
of  perspicuity  in  it.  That  point  is  settled. 

But  Paul  says  something  more  to  Timothy  about 
these  same  Scriptures,  "  whichf  he  says,  "  are  able 
to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation"  Why,  what  is  the 
matter  with  the  man  ?  He  talks  as  if  he  had  taken 
lessons  of  Luther.  When  did  he  live  ?  They  say  that 
the  Protestant  religion  is  only  three  hundred  years  old, 
but  here  is  a  man  who  lived  well  nigh  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago,  that  writes  amazingly  like  a  Protestant 
about  the  Holy  Scriptures.  He  says  (and  I  have  just 
been  looking  at  the  Greek  to  see  if  it  is  so  there,  and  I 
find  that  it  is)  they  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto 
salvation.  Now,  who  wishes  to  be  wiser  than  that  ? 
and  if  they  can  make  one  thus  wise,  they  can  make 
any  number  equally  wise.  So  then  the  Scriptures  can 
be  known  by  children,  and  can  make  wise  to  salvation 
those  who  know  them.  This  is  Paul's  decision,  and 
here  should  be  an  end  of  the  controversy.  If  this  prove 
not  the  sufficiency  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  9 

guide  to  salvation,  I  know  not  how  any  thing  can  be 
proved.  I  will  tell  you  what  I  am  determined  to  do 
the  next  time  a  Catholic  opens  his  mouth  to  me  about 
the  insufficiency  and  obscurity  of  our  rule  of  faith,  I 
mean  to  take  hold  of  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  by  this 
handle,  2  Tim.  3  :  15,  and  I  mean  to  hold  on  to  this 
weapon  of  heavenly  temper,  and  to  wield  it  manfully, 
until  my  opponent  surrender  or  retreat.  He  cannot 
stand  before  it. 

But  before  I  close  this,  I  must  say,  that  if  the  Scrip- 
tures which  existed  when  Paul  wrote  to  Timothy  were 
able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  how  much  more 
are  they  with  what  has  been  added  to  the  canon  since? 
And  here,  by  the  way,  we  have  an  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion which  the  Catholic  asks  with  such  an  air  of  tri- 
umph :  "  How,  if  this  be  your  rule  of  faith,  did  Chris- 
tians get  along  before  the  New  Testament  was  writ- 
ten and  received?"  Very  well;  they  had  Scriptures 
enough  to  make  them  "wise  unto  salvation"  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Timothy;  and  they  had,  many  years 
before  that,  all  the  Old  Testament,  and  a  part  of  the 
New.  Now,  with  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  the 
Psalms,  and  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  perhaps  some 
others,  together  with  a  large  number  of  divinely  in- 
spired men,  I  think  they  must  have  got  along  very 
comfortably. 

One  thing  more  I  desire  to  say.  It  is  this  :  that  there 
is  an  advantage  for  understanding  the  Bible,  which 
does  not  belong  to  any  book  whose  author  is  not  per- 
sonally accessible.  The  advantage  is,  that  we  have 
daily  and  hourly  opportunity  to  consult  the  Author  of 
the  Bible  on  the  meaning  of  it.  We  can,  at  any  mo- 
ment we  please,  go  and  ask  him  to  interpret  to  us  any 


10  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

difficult  passage.  We  can  lift  off  our  eyes  from  the 
word  of  truth,  when  something  occurs  which  we  do 
not  readily  comprehend,  and  direct  them  to  the  throne 
of  grace.  And  what  encouragement  we  have  to  do 
this  !  James  tells  us,  "  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let 
him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all  men  liberally,  and 
upbraideth  not ;  and  it  shall  be  given  him."  So  then 
we  have  the  Bible  to  inform  and  guide  us,  and  we 
have  constant  opportunities  of  consulting  its  Author  in 
regard  to  its  meaning.  Is  it  not  enough  ?  I,  for  one, 
am  satisfied.  I  can  dispense  with  the  fathers,  &c.  &c. 


2.    The  Source  of  Heresies* 

The  Roman  Catholics  say  it  is  the  Bible.  They 
trace  all  the  errors  and  divisions  which  prevail,  to  the 
Scriptures  as  their  fountain.  Do  they  know  whose 
book  it  is  which  they  thus  accuse  ?  How  dare  they 
charge  God  with  being  "  the  Author  of  confusion  ?" 
But  is  the  Bible  to  blame  for  heresies  ?  Christ  gives  a 
very  different  account  of  the  matter.  He  says,  Matt. 
22  :  29,  to  the  Sadducees,  "  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the 
Scriptures."  He  makes  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures 
the  source  of  heresies.  He  does  not  agree  with  the 
priests. 

It  is  very  strange,  if  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  is 
the  cause  of  heresies  in  religion,  that  the  Bereans,  who 
searched  them  daily,  because  they  would  not  take  on 
trust  even  what  Paul  said,  (and  I  suspect  they  would 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY,  11 

not  have  treated  Peter  any  more  civilly,)  did  not  fall 
into  any  of  these  errors.  It  would  seem  to  have  had 
quite  a  contrary  effect,  for  it  is  added,  "  therefore  many 
of  them  believed."  Acts,  17  :  11,  12.  Whatever  these 
Bereans  were,  it  is  clear  that  they  were  not  good  Ca- 
tholics. 

But  after  all  it  is  not  surprising  that  these  noble  Be- 
reans did  not  fall  into  any  fatal  error  by  reason  of  read- 
ing the  Scriptures,  since  Peter  says  of  Paul's  hardest 
parts,  and  most  obscure  passages,  that  they  do  nobody 
any  harm,  but  such  as  are  both  u  unlearned  and  un- 
stable ;"  and  that  they  do  them  no  harm,  except  they 
wrest  thenij  that  is,  do  absolute  violence  to  them.  2 
Pet.  3  :  16. 


3.    Private  Interpretation* 

it  is  known  to  every  body  how  strenuously  the  Ca- 
tholics oppose  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  or  rather,  I 
should  say,  the  reader  exercising  his  mind  on  the 
Bible  which  he  reads.  He  may  read  for  himself,  if 
he  will  only  let  the  church  think  for  him.  He  may 
have  a  New  Testament,  and  he  may  turn  to  such  a 
passage  as  John,  3  :  16,  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  &c.  or  to  that,  Matt. 
11  :  28,  30,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest,"  &c.  and  he 
may  read  the  words,  but  then  he  must  not  attempt  to 
put  a  meaning  upon  them,  though  it  be  very  difficult 


12  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

to  avoid  attaching  a  sense  to  them,  since  they  are 
quite  as  easy  to  be  understood  as  they  are  to  be  read. 
But  he  must  not  do  it.  At  his  peril  he  must  not.  He 
is  guilty  of  the  crime  of  private  interpretation,  if  he 
does.  Before  he  pretends  to  understand  those  passages, 
he  must  inquire  how  the  church  has  always  interpreted 
them,  and  what  the  popes  and  general  councils  have 
thought  about  them,  and  how  all  the  fathers,  from 
Barnabas  to  Bernard,  not  one  excepted,  have  under- 
stood them.  Well,  now,  it  strikes  me  as  rather  hard 
upon  the  poor  sinner,  that  he  should  be  made  to  go 
through  this  long  and  difficult  process  before  he  is 
permitted  to  admire  the  love  of  God  in  the  gift  of  his 
Son,  and  before  he  can  go  to  Jesus  for  rest.  And 
somehow  I  cannot  help  suspecting  that  it  is  noj;  ne- 
cessary to  take  this  circuitous  course,  and  that  it  is 
not  so  very  great  a  sin  when  one  reads  such  passages, 
to  understand  them  according  to  the  obvious  import 
of  their  terms. 

But  the  Catholic  asks,  "  Does  not  Peter  condemn 
private  interpretation  ?"  And  they  point  us  to  his  2d 
Epistle,  1  :  20.  "  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy 
of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation."  Now 
you  must  know  that  Catholics,  though  they  have  no 
great  attachment  to  the  Bible,  are  as  glad  as  any  peo- 
ple can  be,  when  they  can  get  hold  of  a  passage  of  it, 
which  seems  to  establish  some  tenet  of  theirs.  And 
as  only  a  very  small  portion  of  the  Bible  has  even  the 
appearance  of  favoring  them,  one  may  observe  with 
what  eagerness  they  seize  upon,  and  with  what  te- 
nacity they  cling  to  the  rare  passages  which  seem  to 
befriend  their  cause.  Thus  they  do  with  this  pas- 
sage of  Peter.  They  quote  it  with  an  air  of  triumph. 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  13 

and  exultingly  ask  what  Protestants  can  have  to  re- 
ply to  it. 

Now,  in  the  name  of  Protestants,  I  will  state  in  two 
or  three  particulars  what  we  have  to  say  in  opposition 
to  the  Catholic  inference  from  these  words  of  Peter. 
We  say  that  that  passage  does  not  make  for  the  Ca- 
tholic cause,  first)  because  if  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment and  private  interpretation  is  taken  away  by  it, 
as  they  affirm,  yet  it  is  taken  away  with  respect  to 
only  a  small  part  of  the  Bible,  viz.  the  prophetic  part. 
He  does  not  say  that  any  other  part,  the  historical,  the 
didactic,  or  the  .hortatory,  is  of  private  interpretation, 
but  only  the  prophetic,  that  part  in  which  something 
is  foretold.  He  does  not  say  no  Scripture,  but  "  no 
prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpreta- 
tion." Allowing  then  to  the  Catholic  all  which  he 
contends  for,  we  are  left  with  by  far  the  larger  part 
of  the  Bible  open  to  private  interpretation.  Peter  re- 
stricts us  only  in  the  matter  of  prophecy  I 

But  secondly,  let  me  say,  that  to  whatever  the  re- 
mark of  the  apostle  has  reference,  it  can  easily  be 
shown  that  it  does  not  mean  what  the  Catholic  under- 
stands it  to  mean.  This  is  evident  from  what  follows 
it.  I  wish  the  reader  would  turn  to  the  passage.  He 
will  perceive  that  Peter,  having  said  that  no  prophecy 
of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,  pro- 
ceeds to  assign  the  reason  of  that  assertion,  or  rather, 
as  I  think,  goes  into  a  further  and  fuller  explanation  of 
what  he  had  said  :  "  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old 
time  by  the  will  of  man,  (that  is,  it  was  not  of  human 
invention,  it  did  not  express  the  conjectures  of  men,) 
but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Now  I  would  ask  if  this  reason 


14  THOCGHT3   ON    POPERY, 

confirms  the  Catholic  view  of  the  passage  1  Is  the 
fact  that  the  Bible  was  written  by  men  inspired  of  God 
to  write  it,  any  reason  why  it  should  not  be  of  private 
interpretation  ?  Does  the  circumstance  that  God  gave 
them  the  thoughts,  and  even  suggested  to  them  the 
words  in  which  they  should  clothe  them,  render  the 
production  so  unintelligible,  or  so  equivocal  in  its 
meaning,  that  a  private  individual  cannot  be  trusted 
to  read  it  ?  That  would  be  to  say  that  God  cannot 
make  himself  understood  as  easily  as  men  can  !  The 
Catholic  argument  from  this  passage  may  be  stated 
thus :  the,  Bible  is  an  inspired  book,  therefore  too  ob- 
scure and  ambiguous  to  be  of  private  interpretation! 
Inspired,  therefore  unintelligible  ! 

If  it  be  so  hard  to  understand  what  God  says,  how 
was  the  divine  Savior  able  to  make  himself  understood 
by  the  common  people  who  heard  him  gladly  ?  I  sus- 
pect they  knew  what  he  meant  when  he  said,  "  Come 
unto  me,  and  I  will  give  you  rest."  The  sermon  on 
the  mount  seems  to  have  been  understood  by  those 
who  heard  it.  No  one  thought  of  asking  how  others 
understood  it.  No  one  felt  the  necessity  of  an  inter- 
preter :  every  one  exercised  his  private  judgment  on 
what  Christ  said.  Now,  suppose  that  what  Jesus  said 
to  the  people,  and  they  found  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing it,  had  been  taken  down  in  writing  at  the 
time,  would  not  they  who  understood  it  when  they 
heard  it,  have  equally  understood  it  when  they  read 
it?  The  spoken  discourses  of  Christ  were  intelligi- 
ble :  have  they  become  unintelligible  by  being  written? 

To  return  for  a  moment  to  the  passage  in  Peter.  I 
consider  that  the  word  rendered  in  verse  20,  interpre- 
tation^ should  be  translated  as  Dr.  M'Knight  trans- 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  15 

lates  it,  invention  ;  or,  as  another  renders  it,  impulse: 
and  verse  21  should  be  considered  as  explanatory  of 
that  which  precedes  it.  If  the  apostle  really  intended 
to  deny  the  right  of  private  judgment,  why  does  he  in 
verse  19  exhort  all  the  saints,  to  whom  he  wrote,  to 
take  heed  to  "  the  more  sure  word  of  prophecy,"  the 
very  thing  in  reference  to  which  he  is  supposed  to  deny 
the  right  of  private  judgment  ?  Why  should  they  take 
heed  to  it,  if  it  is  not  of  private  interpretation  ?  and 
why  does  he  speak  of  it  as  "  a  light  that  shineth  in  a 
dark  place  ?" 

Finally  :  If  no  part  of  Scripture  is  of  private  inter- 
pretation, then  of  course  the  passage  of  Scripture,  2 
Pet.  1  :  20,  is  not  of  private  interpretation ;  and  yet 
the  Catholic  exercises  his  private  judgment  upon  it, 
and  submits  it  to  the  private  judgment  of  the  Protes- 
tant, in  the  hope  thereby  of  making  him  a  Catholic  ! 
No  part  of  Scripture,  according  to  him,  may  be  pri- 
vately interpreted,  but  that  which  affirms  that  no  party 
not  even  itself,  may  be  privately  interpreted  ! 


4.    Popery    Unscriptural. 

I  undertake  to  prove  that  the  Roman  Catholic  reli- 
gion is  unscriptural — that  it  is  not  borne  out  by  the 
Bible.  If  I  can  do  that,  I  shall  be  satisfied ;  for  a  reli- 
gion, professing  to  be  Christianity,  which  does  not 
agree  with  the  statements  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
John,  Paul,  Peter,  James  and  Jude,  will,  I  am  per- 


16  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

suadedj  never  go  down  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica. It  may  do  for  Spain,  Pertugal  and  Italy ;  but  it 
will  not  do  here.  There  is  too  much  respect  for  the 
Bible  in  this  republican  land  to  admit  of  such  a  thing. 
Republicans  know  too  well  how  much  liberty  owes  to 
the  Bible.  They  know  that  tyranny  cannot  exist  where 
the  Bible,  God's  magna  charta  to  mankind,  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  people.  Besides,  the  people  of  this  coun- 
try have  too  much  good  common  sense  to  take  that 
for  Christianity  about  which  the  evangelists  and  the 
apostles  knew  nothing.  I  think,  therefore,  that  I  shall 
have  gained  the  point,  if  I  show  that  Romanism  and 
the  Bible  are  at  odds.  This,  if  I  mistake  not,  I  can 
easily  do. 

The  Roman  Catholics  act  very  much  as  if  they  them- 
selves did  not  regard  their  religion  as  being  scriptural. 
Why,  if  they  believe  that  their  religion  is  the  religion 
of  the  Bible,  do  they  not  put  the  Bible  into  the  hands 
of  the  people,  and  advise  them  to  read  it,  that  they 
may  become,  or  continue  to  be  good  Roman  Catholics  ? 
Why  not  circulate  far  and  wide  the  book  which  con- 
tains their  religion  ?  They  need  not  take  our  transla- 
tion of  it.  They  have  one  of  their  own — the  Douay. 
Let  them  circulate  that.  Why  do  they  leave  the  whole 
business  of  distributing  the  Scriptures  to  the  Protes- 
tants? Above  all,  why  do  they  oppose  the  operations 
of  Bible  Societies,  when  they  are  only  multiplying 
and  diffusing  copies  of  the  book  which  contains  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion  ? 

I  am  particularly  surprised  that  the  Roman  Catholics 
are  not  more  anxious  to  put  into  general  circulation  the 
two  epistles  of  their  St.  Peter,  who  they  assert  was 
the  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  earliest  Pope.  They  ac- 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  17 

knowledge  that  he  wrote  two  epistles,  and  that  they 
are  extant.  Why,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  do 
they  not  let  every  Catholic  have  them !  I  do  not  won- 
der that  they  wish  to  keep  out  of  sight  of  the  people 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  who  says,  Gal.  2  :  11,  that  he 
withstood  Peter  to  the  face,  "  because  he  was  to  be 
blamed."  Paul  forgot  at  the  moment  that  Peter  was 
supreme  and  infallible !  We  are  all  liable  to  forget. 
But  why  the  rulers  of  the  church  should  be  unwilling 
to  let  the  people  hear  Peter,  is  the  wonder  with  me.  I 
have  been  reading  his  epistles,  to  see  if  I  can  discover 
why  the  Catholics  are  not  friendly  to  their  circulation. 
Perhaps  it  is  because  in  them  he  says  nothing  about 
Rome,  unless  by  Babylon,  1  Ep.  5  :  13,  he  means 
Rome,  as  John  does  in  the  Revelation ;  and  never  a 
word  about  his  being  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  Pope  !  The 
man  seems  to  have  no  idea  that  he  was  a  pope.  He 
says  in  his  1st  Epistle,  5:1,  "  The  elders  which  are 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder."  An  el- 
der !  was  that  all  ?  Why,  Peter,  do  you  forget  your- 
self? Do  you  not  know  that  you  are  universal  Bishop, 
Primate  of  the  Apostolical  College,  Supreme  and 
Infallible  Head  of  the  Church  ?  He  seems  never  to 
have  known  one  word  about  it.  Now  I  think  I  have 
hit  upon  one  reason  why  it  is  thought  best  that  the 
people  in  general  should  not  be  familiar  with  the  wri- 
tings of  Peter. 

I  wish,  for  my  part,  that  the  Catholics  would  print 
an  edition  of  Peter's  Epistles,  and  give  them  general 
circulation  among  their  members ;  for  if  the  religion 
of  these  epistles  is  their  religion,  I  have  no  further 
controversy  with  them. 


18  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 


5.    The   Evil  of  Believing  Too  Much. 

It  is  a  common  saying  among  the  Catholics,  that  it 
is  Detter  to  believe  too  much  than  to  believe  too  little ; 
and  it  is  one  of  the  arguments  with  which  they  endea- 
vor to  make  proselytes,  that  they  believe  all  that  Pro- 
testants believe,  besides  a  good  deal  that  Protestants 
do  not  believe.  Hence  they  would  have  it  inferred  that 
their  religion  possesses  all  the  advantages  which  be- 
long to  Protestantism,  and  some  more  into  the  bargain ; 
so  that  if  the  religion  of  the  Reformation  is  safe,  much 
more  is  that  of  the  church  of  Rome  safe.  Now,  as  I 
am  certain  that  this  way  of  talking  (reasoning  it  is 
not  worthy  to  be  called)  has  some  influence  in  making 
Catholics,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  examining  it. 

Why  is  it  better  to  believe  too  much  than  to  believe 
too  little  ?  Excess  in  other  things  is  not  better  than 
defect.  To  eat  or  drink  too  much  is  not  better  than  to 
eat  or  drink  too  little.  To  believe  that  two  and  two 
make  five,  is  as  bad  as  to  believe  that  two  and  two 
make  three.  One  of  these  errors  will  derange  a  man's 
calculations  as  much  as  the  other.  The  man  who  be- 
lieves that  two  and  two  make  five,  has  no  advantage 
because  he  believes  the  whole  truth  and  a  little  more. 

A  certain  writer,  who  ought  to  be  in  high  authority 
at  Rome  as  well  as  every  where  else,  represents  addi- 
tions to  the  truth  to  be  as  injurious  and  as  offensive  to 
God  as  subtraction  from  it.  Rev.  22  :  18,  19.  "  If  any 
man  shall  add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto 
him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book."  Here 
you  see  what  a  man  gets  by  believing  too  much.  It  is 
not  altogether  so  safe  a  thing  as  the  Catholics  repre- 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  19 

sent  it  to  be.  Adding  is  as  bad  as  taking  away.  For 
every  article  added  there  is  a  plague  added. 

I  suppose  that  one  reason  why  these  additions  to  the 
truth  are  so  offensive  to  God  is,  that  they  are  such  ad- 
ditions as  take  from  that  to  which  they  are  added ;  just 
as  when  a  man  puts  "  a  piece  of  new  cloth  into  an  old 
garment,  that  which  is  put  in  to  fill  it  up  taketh  from 
the  garment,  and  the  rent  is  made  worse."  Mat.  9  :  16. 
All  the  additions  of  the  church  of  Rome  to  Christiani- 
ty take  away  from  some  of  its  doctrines.  She  first  cuts 
a  hole  in  the  robe  of  Christ  and  then  applies  her  patch  ! 
In  order  to  make  room  for  her  doctrine  of  human  me- 
rit, she  has  to  take  away  just  so  much  from  the  merit 
of  Christ.  The  Protestant  doctrine  is,  that  we  are  justi- 
fied by  faith  alone,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Nay, 
says  the  Catholic,  our  own  good  works  have  some- 
thing to  do  in  the  matter  of  our  justification.  Now,  this 
addition  does  not  leave  entire  that  to  which  it  is  added, 
but  takes  from  it ! 

We  hold  to  the  perfection  of  the  one  sacrifice  offered 
by  Christ  on  the  cross.  The  Catholics  add  to  this  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass.  They  are  not  satisfied  with 
Christ's  being  "  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many," 
but  they  teach  the  strange  doctrine  that  Christ  is  of- 
fered as  often  as  a  priest  is  pleased  to  say  mass  ! 

Nothing  is  farther  from  the  truth  than  that  the  Ca- 
tholic believes  all  which  the  Protestant  believes,  be- 
sides a  great  deal  that  the  Protestant  does  not  believe. 
The  latter  part  of  the  assertion  is  correct.  The  Ca- 
tholics believe  a  great  deal  which  the  Protestants  do 
not.  In  the  quantity  of  their  faith  they  far  surpass  us. 
There  is  the  whole  that  is  comprehended  in  tradition. 
They  believe  every  word  of  it — while  Protestants  are 


20  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

satisfied  with  Holy  Scripture.  But  the  Catholics  do 
not  believe  all  that  Protestants  believe ;  they  do  not 
believe  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  regeneration,  or  jus- 
tification, or  other  cardinal  doctrines. 

But,  asks  one,  is  not  all  that  Protestants  believe 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  !  Yes.  Well,  Catholics 
believe  the  Scriptures.  Therefore  they  believe  all 
which  Protestants  do ;  and  then,  moreover,  they  be- 
lieve tradition  ;  so  that  they  believe  all  which  Protes- 
tants believe,  and  some  more  besides.  Very  logical,  to 
be  sure  !  But  suppose  that  tradition  and  Scripture  hap- 
pen to  contradict  each  other,  how  then  ?  What  sort  of 
an  addition  to  a  testimony  is  a  contradiction  of  it?  I 
might  give  some  precious  specimens  of  these  contra- 
dictions. The  Catholic  believes  with  Scripture,  that 
"  marriage  is  honorable  in  all;"  and  he  believes  with 
tradition,  that  it  is  very  disgraceful  in  some.  One  of 
his  rules  of  faith  affirms  that  "  all  our  righteousnesses 
are  as  filthy  rags,"  but  the  other  assures  him  that  there 
is  merit  in  his  good  works.  One  says  that  Peter  was 
to  be  blamed,  but  the  other  asserts  his  infallibility. 
According  to  one,  Peter  was  a  simple  elder ;  but  ac- 
cording to  the  other,  universal  bishop,  &c.  The  Catho- 
lic says  he  believes  both,  and  therefore  he  is  in  a  safer 
state  than  the  Protestant.  Well,  when  I  can  be  con- 
vinced that  two  contradictory  assertions  are  both  true, 
I  may  believe  as  much  as  the  Catholic  believes.  Mean- 
while I  am  satisfied  with  believing  enough;  and  not 
caring  to  be  more  than  perfectly  safe,  I  shall  continue 
to  be  a  Protestant. 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  21 


6.    The  Nine   Commandments. 

"Nine  commandments  S  What  does  that  mean  ?  I 
always  thought  the  commandments  were  ten."  There 
used  to  be  that  number.  There  were  ten  proclaimed 
by  the  voice  of  God  from  Mount  Sinai ;  and  ten  were 
written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  the  tables  of  stone, 
and  when  the  tables  were  renewed,  there  were  still 
ten :  and  the  Jews,  the  keepers  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  always  recognized  ten ;  and  so  did  the  pri- 
mitive church,  and  so  do  all  Protestants  in  their  creeds 
and  catechisms.  But  the  Roman  Catholics,  (you  know 
they  can  take  liberties,  for  they  are  the  true  church, 
they  are  infallible.  A  person,  and  so  a  church,  which 
cannot  possibly  make  a  mistake,  need  not  be  very  par- 
ticular about  what  it  does,)  these  Christians  who  have 
their  head  away  off  at  Rome,  subtract  one  from  the 
ten  commandments  ;  and  you  know  if  you  take  one 
from  ten,  only  nine  remain.  So  they  have  but  nine 
commandments.  Theirs  is  not  a  Decalogue,  but  a 
Nonalogue. 

It  is  just  so.  When,  many  years  ago,  I  first  heard 
of  it,  I  thought  it  was  a  slander  of  the  Protestants. 
I  said,  "  O,  it  cannot  be  that  they  have  dared  to  med- 
dle with  God's  ten  commandments,  and  leave  out  one. 
They  cannot  have  been  guilty  of  such  impiety.  Why, 
it  is  just  as  if  some  impious  Israelite  had  gone  into 
the  holy  of  holies,  opened  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and 
taking  out  the  tables  of  stone,  had,  with  some  instru- 
ment of  iron,  obliterated  one  of  the  commands  which 
the  divine  finger  wrote  on  them."  But  then  it  struck 
me  how  improbable  it  was  that  such  a  story  should 


22  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

ever  have  gained  currency,  unless  there  was  some 
foundation  for  it.  Who  would  ever  have  thought  of 
charging  Roman  Catholics  with  suppressing  one  of 
the  commandments,  unless  they  had  done  it,  or  some- 
thing like  it  ? 

So  I  thought  I  would  inquire  whether  it  was  so  or 
not ;  and  I  did,  and  found  it  to  be  a  fact,  and  no  slan- 
der. I  saw  with  my  own  eyes  the  catechisms  published 
under  the  sanction  of  bishops  and  archbishops,  in 
which  one  of  the  commandments  was  omitted  j  and 
the  reader  may  see  the  same  thing  in  "  The  Manual 
of  Catholic  Piety,"  printed  no  farther  off  than  in  Phi- 
ladelphia. The  list  of  the  commandments  runs  thus : 

1.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God ;  thou  shalt  not  have 
strange  Gods  before  me. 

2.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  vain. 

3.  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  &c. 

The  reader  will  see  that  the  commandment  which 
the  Catholics  leave  out,  as  being  grievous  to  them,  is 
the  second  in  the  series.  It  is  the  one  that  forbids 
making  graven  images  and  likenesses  of  any  thing  for 
worship.  That  is  the  one  they  don't  like  ;  and  they 
don't  like  it,  because  they  do  like  pictures  and  images 
in  their  churches.  They  say  these  things  wonderfully 
tend  to  promote  devotion,  and  so  they  do  away  that 
commandment  of  God  !  David  says,  "  I  esteem  all 
thy  precepts  concerning  all  things  to  be  right."  But 
he  was  no  Catholic. 

Well,  having  got  rid  of  the  second,  they  call  the 
third  second,  and  our  fourth  they  number  third,  and 
so  on  till  they  come  to  our  tenth,  which,  according  to 
their  numbering,  is  the  ninth.  But  as  they  don't  like 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  23 

the  sound  of  "  the  nine  commandments,"  since  the 
Bible  speaks  of  "  the  ten  commandments,"  Exod.  34  : 
28  j  Deut.  4  :  13,  and  every  body  has  got  used  to  the 
number  ten,  they  must  contrive  to  make  out  ten  some 
how  or  other.  And  how  do  you  think  they  do  it? 
Why,  they  halve  their  ninth,  and  call  the  first  part 
ninth,  and  the  other  tenth. 

So  they  make  out  ten.  In  the  Philadelphia  Manual, 
corrected  and  approved  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop 
Kenrick,  it  is  put  down  thus :  "9th.  Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  wife.  10th.  Thou  shalt  not  covet 
thy  neighbor's  goods."  You  see  they  make  two  of  the 
commandments  to  relate  to  coveting.  It  is  not  very 
probable  the  Lord  did  so.  I  reckon  they  were  not  so 
numbered  on  the  tables  of  stone.  But  you  see  it  would 
never  do  to  let  that  second  commandment  stand,  and 
it  would  never  do  to  have  less  than  ten :  so  they  were 
laid  under  a  sort  of  necessity  to  do  as  they  have  done. 
But,  after  all,  it  is  a  bad  job.  It  is  not  near  so  inge- 
nious as  many  of  the  devices  of  Popery.  After  all  is 
said  and  done,  they  have  but  nine  commandments ;  for 
every  body  knows  thai  by  dividing  any  thing  you  get 
not  two  wholes,  but  two  halves:  there  is  but  one 
whole  after  the  division.  And  so  the  ninth  command- 
ment is  but  one  commandment  after  they  have  divided 
it.  If  they  were  to  quarter  it  they  could  not  make 
any  more  of  it.  If  the  Catholics  are  bent  on  dividing 
the  last  of  the  commandments,  they  should  call  the 
first  half,  8i,  and  the  second  half,'9th.  That  is  what 
they  ought  to  do.  That  would  be  acting  honestly, 
for  they  know  they  have  left  out  one  of  the  Lord's 
ten.  They  know  that  the  Lord  gave  ten  command- 
ments, and  they  acknowledge  only  nine  of  them.  It 


24  THOUGHTS    OX   POPERY. 

is  a  mean  device  to  divide  one  of  the  nine,  and  then 
say  they  acknowledge  ten.  The  Catholics  know  that 
the  commandments,  as  they  are  in  many  of  their  cate- 
chisms, are  not  as  they  were  written  with  the  finger  of 
God  on  the  tables  of  stone.  They  know  that  one  is 
wanting,  and  why 'it  is  they  know.  They  had  better 
take  care  how  they  do  such  things,  for  the  Lord  is  a 
jealous  God. 

Indeed  the  Catholics  are  sorry  for  what  they  have 
done  in  this  matter.  It  has  turned  out  a  bad  specula- 
tion. This  reduction  of  the  law  of  God  one-tenth, 
has  led  to  the  opening  of  many  eyes.  They  would 
never  do  the  like  again.  And  as  a  proof  of  their  re- 
pentance, they  have  restored  the  second  command- 
ment in  many  cases :  they  can  show  you  a  great  many 
catechisms  and  books  in  which  it  is  found.  I  had  sup- 
posed that  the  omission  existed  now  only  in  the  cate- 
chisms published  and  used  in  Ireland,  until  I  heard  of 
the  Philadelphia  Manual.  They  had  better  repent 
thoroughly,  and  restore  the  commandment  in  all  their 
publications.  And  I  think  it  would  not  be  amiss  for 
them  to  confess  that  for  once  they  have  been  fallible ; 
that  in  the  matter  of  mutilating  the  Decalogue,  they 
could,  and  did  err.  If  they  will  afford  us  that  evidence 
of  repentance,  we  will  forgive  them,  and  we  will  say 
no  more  about  it.  We  know  it  is  a  sore  subject  with 
them ;  they  don't  know  how  to  get  along  with  it.  When 
one  asks  them,  "  How  came  you  to  leave  out  the  second 
commandment  ?"  if  they  say,  "  Why,  we  have  not  left 
it  out  of  all  our  books."  The  other  replies,  "But  why 
did  you  leave  it  out  of  any  ?"  and  there  the  conversa- 
tion ends.  Echo  is  the  only  respondent,  and  she  but 
repeats  the  question,  "  Why  ?" 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  25 


7.    Catholic  Hostility  to  the  Bible. 

I  am  not  surprised  that  the  Roman  Catholics  dislike 
the  Bible,  for  very  much  the  same  reason  that  Ahab, 
king  of  Israel,  disliked  Micaiah,  the  prophet  of  the 
Lord.  1  Kings,  22  :  8.  It  is  hard  not  to  contract  a 
strong  dislike  to  that  which  is  for  ever  bearing  testi- 
mony against  one.  To  love  an  enemy  is  one  of  the 
most  difficult  attainments.  Now,  the  Bible  is  all  the 
time  speaking  against  the  Catholic  religion,  and  pro- 
phesying not  good,  but  evil  of  it,  just  as  Micaiah  did  of 
Ahab.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  that  the  Catholic  should 
feel  an  aversion  to  the  Bible.  We  ought  not  to  expect 
any  thing  else.  But  I  am  somewhat  surprised  that 
they  do  not  take  more  pains  to  conceal  their  dislike  of 
it,  for  it  certainly  does  not  look  well  that  the  church 
of  God  should  fall  out  with  the  oracles  of  God.  It  has 
an  ugly  appearance,  to  say  the  least,  to  see  the  Chris- 
tian church  come  out  against  the  Christian  Scriptures. 

I  wondered  much,  when,  a  few  years  ago,  the  Pope 
issued  his  encyclical  letter,  forbidding  the  use  of  the 
Bible  in  the  vulgar  tongue.  It  certainly  looks  bad  that 
Christ  should  say,  "  Search  the  Scriptures  ;"  and  that 
the  vicar  of  Christ  should  say,  "  No,  you  shall  not  even 
have  them."  It  has  very  much  the  appearance  of  con- 
tradicting Christ:  but  appearances  may  deceive  in  this 
case,  as  in  transubstantiation.  But  I  must  do  the  Pope 
justice.  He  does  not  unconditionally  forbid  the  use  of 
the  Bible,  but  only  the  use  of  it  in  the  vulgar  tongue. 
The  Pope  has  no  objection  that  a  person  should  have 
the  Bible,  provided  he  has  it  in  a  language  which  he 
does  not  understand.  The  English  Catholic  may  hate 
3 


26  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

a  French  Bible,  and  the  devout  Frenchman  may  make 
use  of  an  English  or  Dutch  Bible ;  or  both  may  have 
a  Latin  Bible,  provided  they  have  not  studied  Latin. 
An  acquaintance  with  the  Latin  makes  it  as  vulgar  a 
tongue  as  any  other.  I  have  thought  it  due  to  the  Pope 
to  say  thus  much  in  his  favor.  Far  be  it  from  him  to 
forbid  the  use  of  the  Bible,  except  in  the  vulgar  tongue  ! 
Another  more  recent  fact  has  surprised  me  not  a 
little — that  a  student  of  Maynooth  College,  Ireland, 
named  O'Beirne,  should  have  been  expelled  that  insti- 
tution for  persisting  in  reading  the  Bible  !  Expulsion 
is  a  pretty  serious  thing.  That  must  be  esteemed  a 
heinous  crime  which  is  supposed  to  justify  so  severe 
a  penalty.  I  cannot  see  any  thing  so  criminal  in  read- 
ing the  Scriptures.  I  wonder  if  the  reading  of  any 
other  book  is  forbidden  at  Maynooth :  I  suspect  not. 
The  authorities  at  Maynooth  must  think  the  Bible  the 
worst  book  in  the  world.  A  student  of  that  college 
may  read  whatever  is  most  offensive  to  purity  and 
piety  in  the  ancient  classics,  without  any  danger  of 
expulsion ;  but  if  he  reads  the  Bible  he  is  dismissed 
with  dishonor !  But  I  suppose  they  will  say,  he  was 
not  expelled  for  reading  the  Scriptures,  but  for  con- 
tempt of  authority,  in  that,  after  being  forbidden  to 
read  the  Scriptures,  he  still  persisted  in  reading  them. 
That  makes  a  difference  I  must  confess:  still  the 
young  man's  case  was  a  hard  one.  Christ  told  him 
not  only  to  read,  but  to  search  the  Scriptures :  the  au- 
thorities of  the  college  told  him  he  must  not.  His  sin 
consisted  in  obeying  Christ  rather  than  the  govern- 
ment of  the  college.  I  think  it  might  have  been  set 
down  as  venial.  They  might  have  overlooked  the  fault 
of  preferring  Christ's  authority  to  theirs.  "  When  the 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  27 

Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,"  I  don't  believe 
he  will  expel  the  young  man  for  what  he  did,  though 
the  college  bade  him  "  depart." 

I  wonder,  and  have  always  wondered,  that  the  Ca- 
tholics, in  prohibiting  the  Scriptures,  do  not  except  St.  ^ 
Peter's  Epistles.  Was  ever  any  Catholic  forbidden  to 
read  the  letters  of  a  Pope  ?  I  believe  not.  But  if  good 
Catholics  may,  and  should  read  the  "  Encyclical  Let- 
ters "  of  the  Popes,  why  not  let  them  read  the  "  Gene- 
ral Epistles  "  of  the  first  of  Popes,  Peter  ?  Why  is  it 
any  more  criminal  to  read  the  letters  of  Pope  Peter, 
than  those  of  Pope  Gregory  ?  I  cannot  explain  this. 

Here  is  another  fact  that  has  surprised  me.  A  recent 
Galway  newspaper  denounces,  by  name,  two  Protest- 
ant clergymen  as  reptiles,  and  advises  that  they  should 
be  at  once  trampled  on.  What  for  ?  Why,  for  the  sin 
of  holding  a  Bible  meeting,  and  distributing  the  Scrip- 
tures !  It  speaks  of  them  as  a  hell-inspired  junto  of 
incarnate  fiends,  and  says,  "  If  the  devil  himself  came 
upon  earth,  he  would  assume  no  other  garb  than  that 
of  one  of  these  biblicals."  The  Irish  editor  adds,  "  The 
biblical  junto  must  be  put  down  in  Galway."  He  is 
evidently  in  a  passion  with  the  Bible :  I  suppose  it 
must  be  because  it  prophecies  no  good  of  him.  Cer- 
tainly he  cannot  think  the  Bible  very  favorable  to  his 
religion,  otherwise  he  would  not  proclaim  such  a  cru- 
sade against  its  distribution.  It  is  the  first  time  I  ever 
heard  it  asserted,  that  the  managers  and  members  of 
Bible  Societies  are  ipso  facto  incarnate  fiends.  It 
seems  singular,  that  those  who  promote  the  circulation 
of  a  heaven-inspired  volume,  should  be  themselves, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  hell-inspired.  I  cannot  think 
that  Exeter  Hall  and  Chatham-street  Chapel  become 


28  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

Pandemoniums  whenever  the  Bible  Society -meets  in 
them.  Nor  shall  I  believe  that  Satan  is  going  to  turn 
Bible  distributer,  until  I  actually  see  him  "  walking 
about "  on  this  agency. 

I  do  not  know  how  it  is,  but  I  cannot  help  looking 
on  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  benevolent 
business — the  gratuitous  giving  of  the  word  of  God 
to  the  children  of  men  as  a  good  work.  When  re- 
cently I  read  an  article  stating  that  the  Young  Men's 
New-York  Bible  Society  had  undertaken  to  supply  the 
emigrants  arriving  at  that  port  with  the  Bible  in  their 
respective  languages,  I  almost  instinctively  pronounc- 
ed it  a  good  work ;  and  I  was  astonished,  as  well  as 
grieved,  to  find  that  some  of  the  emigrants  refused  to 
receive  the  volume.  I  suppose  that  if  the  agent  had 
offered  them  a  volume  of  the  Spectator,  or  a  novel, 
they  would  have  taken  that.  Any  book  of  man  they 
could  have  thankfully  received ;  but  the  book  of  God 
they  had  been  instructed  to  refuse,  should  that  be  of- 
fered them  !  The  agent  reports  the  following  fact : 
"  June  17,  visited  on  their  landing  a  large  number  of 
emigrants  from  Ireland,  not  one  of  whom  could  be 
prevailed  on  to  receive  a  Bible,  even  as  a  gift.  One  of 
the  females  told  me,  if  I  would  give  her  one  she 
would  take  it  with  her  and  burn  it."  Who,  do  you  sup- 
pose, put  them  up  to  refuse  the  Bible  ?  And  who  put 
it  into  the  head  of  the  woman  to  speak  of  burning  the 
Bible  ?  I  think  any  person,  in  whatever  part  of  the 
country  born,  could  guess.  I  guess  it  was  not  any 
infidel — I  guess  it  was  a  priest. 

But  perhaps  the  reason  they  refused  the  Bibles  of- 
fered them,  was,  that  they  had  other  and  better  Bibles. 
That  is  not  pretended.  They  had  none.  Now,  it  seems 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  29 

to  me  they  might  have  accepted  our  Bibles  until  they 
could  procure  their  own  better  Bibles.  An  imperfectly 
translated  Bible  is  better  than  none  :  no  translation  of 
the  Bible  was  ever  so  bad  as  to  be  worse  than  no  Bi- 
ble. What  if  the  DOUAY  is  before  all  other  Bibles, 
yet  king  James'  may  answer  one's  turn  until  he  can 
get  the  Douay.  The  Catholics  complain  that  we  give 
their  people  an  erroneously  translated  Bible :  why, 
then,  do  they  not  supply  them  with  a  correct  transla- 
tion ?  When  they  undertake  that,  we  will  cease  to 
trouble  them.  We  would  be  very  glad  to  see  every 
Catholic  family  possessing,  and  capable  of  reading, 
the  Douay  Bible,  although  it  does  make  repentance  to- 
wards God  to  consist  in  doing  penance  appointed  by 
men.  But  that  they  have  no  idea  of  doing.  Does  not 
the  Pope  forbid  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  vulgar 
tongue !  I  know  many  Catholics  have  it,  but  it  is  no 
part  of  their  religion  to  have  a  Bible.  They  get  their 
Christianity  without  the  trouble  of  searching  the 
Scriptures.  Indeed  they  would  in  vain  search  in  the 
Scriptures  for  what  they  call  Christianity.  If  they 
were  not  perfectly  conscious  that  their  religion  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  do  you  suppose  they  would 
denounce  and  persecute  that  book  as  they  do  ?  Would 
they  direct  their  inquiries  to  fathers,  and  councils,  and 
priests  for  information,  rather  than  to  prophets,  evan- 
gelists, and  apostles? 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 


8.    Something  for  the  Rev*  Mr.  H. 

Mr.  H.  the  Goliath  of  the  Catholics,  seems  to  be 
very  fond  of  asking  questions  which  he  thinks  no- 
body can  answer.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  any  wri- 
ter who  makes  more  frequent  use  of  the  interrogation 
point.  But  his  questions  are  not  quite  so  unanswera- 
ble as  he  supposes.  I  will  just  answer  two  of  the  string 
of  questions  with  which  he  commences  a  recent  letter 
to  Mr.  B.  and  then  I  beg  leave  to  ask  a  few. 

He  wants  to  know  first,  what  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion is.  He  has  been  often  told,  bu*  I  will  tell  him 
again.  It  is  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  It  was  not 
called  Protestant  when  the  Bible  was  written,  for 
then  there  was  no  corruption  of  Christianity  to  pro- 
test against.  But  it  is  the  same,  however  called. 
There  it  is,  in  the  Bible.  Read  it.  Read  any  part 
of  it.  You  cannot  go  amiss  to  find  the  religion  of  the 
Reformation  in  the  Bible.  Read  particularly  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  whom  Catholics  pretend  to 
refer  their  origin  ;  or  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  I 
wonder  if  a  passage  from  either  of  these  prominent 
epistles  was  ever  quoted  by  any  one  in  proof  of  any 
peculiarity  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  !  I  suspect 
never.  Protestants,  however,  make  great  use  of  them. 

But,  says  the  interrogator,  "  tell  us  what  particular 
doctrines  constitute  the  Protestant  religion.  Telling 
us  it  is  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  is  telling  us  where  it 
is,  but  not  what  it  is."  And  is  it  not  enough  to  tell 
you  where  you  may  find  a  thing?  Have  you  no  eyes? 
Have  you  no  mind?  Do  you  want  one  to  think  for 
you  ?  Is  not  that  all  which  Jesus  Christ  did  ?  He  gave 


'" 


THOUGHTS   ON    POP! 

the  Scriptures  to  the  Jews,  and  said,  "  search  them." 
So  we  put  the  Bible  into  your  hand,  and  say,  there  is 
our  religion.  And  yet  you  ask,  "  Where  was  your  re- 
ligion before  Luther  ?"  Before  Luther  !  we  tell  you 
where  it  was  before  the  earliest  fathers.  It  was  in 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  where  it  is  now,  and  ever 
will  be.  What  have  we  to  do  with  Luther  or  Augus- 
tine, or  any  of  them,  until  we  get  as  far  back  into  an- 
tiquity as  St.  John  ? 

But  Mr.  H.  asks  again,  "  What  society  of  Chris- 
tians ever  taught  this  pretended  religion  of  Christ  pre- 
vious to  the  Reformation?"  Why,  Mr.  H.  do  not  affect 
such  ignorance — you  must  be  joking,  when  you  ask 
such  a  question.  Did  you  never  hear  of  a  society  of 
Christians  residing  at  Rome,  some  of  whom  were  of 
Caesar's  household,  to  whom  one  Paul  wrote  a  letter, 
which  has  come  down  to  us?  Now,  if  it  cannot  be  as- 
certained what  that  society  of  Christians  "  taught," 
yet  it  can  easily  be  ascertained  what  was  taught 
them.  It  is  only  to  read  the  letter.  And  I  think  it 
not  improbable  that  that  society  of  Christians  profess- 
ed and  taught  what  St.  Paul  taught  them. 

But  there  was  another  respectable  society  of  Chris- 
tians, a  good  while  "  previous  to  the  Reformation," 
who  seem  to  have  known  something  about  this  "  pre- 
tended religion  of  Christ,"  called  Protestant.  They 
dwelt  in  a  city  named  Ephesus.  That  same  Paul 
resided  among  them  three  years,  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel, and  he  did  it  faithfully.  He  "  shunned  not  to 
declare  all  the  counsel  of  God."  After  establishing 
a  flourishing  church  there,  he  went  away,  and  subse- 
quently addressed  an  epistle  to  them,  which  also  has 
come  down  to  us.  In  this  epistle  it  is  to  be  presumed 


32  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

that  he  embodied  the  substance  of  the  Gospel,  which 
he  had  taught  them  "publicly  and  from  house  to 
house."  He  is  not  to  be  suspected  of  preaching  one 
thing  and  writing  another.  Will  Mr.  H.  deny  that 
the  society  of  Christians  at  Ephesus  professed  and 
taught  the  doctrines  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  ? 
I  think  not.  Well,  sir,  what  are  the  doctrines  of  that 
epistle  ?  Are  they  yours  or  ours — Catholic  or  Protes- 
tant ?  I  will  leave  it  to  any  intelligent  infidel  on  earth 
to  decide.  Will  Mr.  H.  agree  to  the  reference  ?  O 
no,  he  wants  us  to  leave  it  to  a  pope,  and  general  coun- 
cil, and  the  unanimous  fathers. 

I  have  told  Mr.  H.  now  of  two  societies  of  Chris- 
tians who  "  taught  this  pretended  religion  of  Christ 
previous  to  the  Reformation."  I  could  tell  of  more  ; 
but  two  are  enough.  He  only  asked  for  one. 

Now  I  would  ask  Mr.  H.  a  question.  Where  was 
your  religion,  Mr.  H.  at  the  time  the  Bible  was  writ- 
ten ?  I  am  curious  to  know.  How  came  the  evange- 
lists and  apostles  to  know  nothing  about  it,  if  it  is 
really  the  religion  of  Christ  ?  Perhaps  Mr.  H.  can 
clear  up  this  difficulty.  I  wish  he  would,  if  he  can. 
I  do  not  want  him  to  say  where  his  religion  was  after 
the  Bible  was  written,  and  after  all  the  evangelists 
and  apostles  were  dead.  I  am  informed  on  that  point. 
I  want  to  know  where  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
was  before  those  good  men  died  ;  where  it  was  before 
the  fathers. 

They  talk  about  the  antiquity  of  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic religion.  It  is  old,  I  must  confess.  It  bears 
many  marks  of  age  upon  it.  But  the  difficulty  is,  it 
is  not  old  enough  by  a  century  or  two  at  least.  They 
say  it  is  the  first  form  of  Christianity.  That  is  a 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  33 

mistake.  It  is  the  second.  The  first  appeared  for  a 
while,  then  "  fled  into  the  wilderness,  where  she  had 
a  place  prepared  of  God,"  and  re-appeared  at  the  Re- 
formation. They  call  it  a  new  religion.  But  no,  it 
is  the  old  restored.  If  any  one  doubts  the  identity  of 
the  restored  religion,  let  him  but  compare  its  features 
with  that  which  appeared  and  flourished  in  the  apos- 
tolic age. 

Another  question  I  beg  leave  to  ask  Mr.  H.  "  Did 
the  first  Christians  of  Rome  hold  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  or  did  they  not?" 
If  they  did  not,  they  must  have  departed  from  the  faith 
sooner  than  Paul  predicted  that  they  would.  If  they 
did  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  epistle,  then,  since  these 
are  the  very  doctrines  which  the  friends  of  the  Refor- 
mation contend  for,  have  we  not  here  the  example  of 
a  society  holding  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation 
long  before  the  actual  era  of  the  Reformation  ?  I  have 
other  questions  to  ask,  but  I  wait  for  these  to  be  an- 
swered. 


9.  The  Distinction  of  Sins  into  Mortal  and  Venial. 

Mr.  Editor, — I  was  not  aware,  until  recently,  that 
Roman  Catholics  of  this  age,  and  in  this  country,  make 
that  practical  use  which  I  find  they  do  of  the  distinc- 
tion of  sins  into  mortal  and  venial.  For  the  truth  of 
the  following  narrative  I  can  vouch.  An  intelligent 
gentleman  being,  a  few  weeks  since,  expostulated 
with  by  a  Protestant  lady,  on  his  spending  the  whole 
of  a  certain  Sabbath  in  playing  cards,  replied  with 


34  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  v*   * 

the  utmost  readiness,  and  with  every  appearance  of 
confidence  in  the  validity  of  his  apology,  "  O,  that  is 
not  a  mortal  sin."  Several  similar  examples  of  a 
resort  to  this  distinction  were  reported  to  me.  Now, 
can  that  system  be  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
recognizes  this  horrible  distinction,  and  puts  such  a 
plea  as  this  into  the  mouth  of  a  transgressor  of  one  ot 
the  commandments  of  that  Decalogue  which  God's 
own  voice  articulated  and  his  own  finger  wrote?  I 
cannot  express  the  feelings  I  have,  when  I  think  of 
the  multitudes  who  are  forming  a  character  for  eterni- 
ty under  the  influence  of  doctrines  like  these.  What 
sort  of  a  character  must  they  form  ! 

How  completely  at  variance  with  the  Scriptures  is 
this  distinction !  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continu- 
eth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  of 
the  law  to  do  them — the  wages  of  sin  is  death — the 
soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."  Gal.  3  :  10 ;  Rom.  6  : 
23  ;  Ezek.  18  :  4.  Is  not  all  sin  disobedience  to  God  ? 
and  may  he  be  disobeyed  in  any  respect  without  guilt  ? 
Did  ever  a  father  of  a  family  recognize  such  a  distinc- 
tion in  the  government  of  his  children  ?  Did  Christ 
atone  for  what  are  called  venial  sins,  or  did  he  not  ? 
If  he  did  not,  then  he  did  not  atone  for  all  sin.  If  he 
did  atone  for  them,  they  must  be  worthy  of  death,  since 
he  died  for  them. 

The  truth  is,  all  sin  is  mortal,  if  not  repented  of; 
and  all  sin  is  venial,  that  is,  pardonable,  if  repented  of. 
There  is  no  sin  which  the  blood  of  Christ  cannot  cleanse 
from.  And  nothing  but  that  can  take  out  any  sin. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  reason  against  such  a  dis- 
tinction. I  only  mention  it  as  one  of  the  absurd  and 
pernicious  errors  of  the  system  to  which  it  belongs. 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  36 


10.    The  Deadly  Sins. 

In  "  the  Christian's  Guide  to  Heaven "  I  read  with 
some  interest  an  enumeration  of  what  the  Catholics 
are  pleased  to  call  "the  seven  deadly  sins."  Why 
this  distinction,  thought  I  ?  Are  there  only  seven  sins  ? 
Or  are  only  some  sins  deadly ;  and  is  the  number  of 
sins  that  kill  ascertained  by  the  infallible  church  to  be 
just  seven  and  no  more,  all  other  sins  being  venial, 
not  mortal,  according  to  another  distinction  which  that 
church  presumes  to  make  ? 

They  cannot  mean  that  there  are  only  seven  sins, 
for  heresy  is  not  in  this  list  of  sins,  and  that  I  am  sure 
they  esteem  a  sin ;  neither  is  there  any  mention  of 
falsehood  and  deception,  which  we  Protestants  regard 
as  sins,  even  though  their  object  should  be  pious.  Be- 
sides, David  says  that  his  iniquities  were  more  than 
tke  hairs  of  his  head — consequently  many  more  than 
seven.  And  who  is  any  better  off  than  David  in  this 
respect?  Moreover,  even  the  Catholics  admit  nine 
commandments.  They  do  not  leave  out  any  but  the 
second.  They  must  therefore  admit  the  possibility  of 
at  least  nine  sins. 

They  must  mean  that  there  are  only  seven  sins 
which  are  mortal  to  the  soul.  But  if  this  be  the  case, 
why  is  it  said,  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do 
them  ?"  It  is  admitted  that  there  are  more  than  seven 
things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law.  Again,  why  is 
it  said  that  the  wages  of  sin  is  death  ?  This  would 
seem  to  imply  that  death  is  due  to  every  sin,  of  what- 
ever kind.  If  there  are  only  seven  deadly  sins,  why 


00  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

does  not  the  apostle  say,  "  The  wages  of  these  seven 
sins  (enumerating  them)  is  death  ?"  But  he  does  not 
say  that.  He  regarded  all  sins  as  deadly — every  one 
of  the  multitude  as  mortal  in  its  consequences. 

If  there  are  only  seven  sins  which  are  deadly,  then 

1  suppose  we  can  answer  for  all  the  rest ;  but  Job  says 
he  cannot  answer  him  one  of  a  thousand.    According 
to  Job,  then,  who  is  a  very  ancient  authority,  there  are 
at  least  a  thousand  sins  for  which  we  cannot  answer. 

But  let  us  hear  what  the  seven  are.  They  are  Pride^ 
Covetousness,  Luxury  or  Lust,  Anger,  Gluttony,  En- 
vy, Sloth.  Well,  these  are,  to  be  sure,  sins,  all  but  one 
of  them,  anger,  which  is  not  necessarily  a  sin  any 
more  than  grief  is.  We  are  directed  to  "  be  angry  and 
sin  not."  I  wonder  they  should  have  put  anger  with- 
out any  qualification  among  the  seven  deadly  sins.  It 
must  be  because  they  are  not  familiar  with  the  Scrip- 
tures. But  granting  them  all  to  be  sins,  then  certainly 
they  are  deadly,  since  all  sin  is  deadly.  We  could  not 
therefore  object,  if  it  had  been  said,  in  reference  to 
them,  "  seven  deadly  sins."  But  "  the  seven  deadly 
sins  "  seems  to  imply  that  there  are  no  more.  We  read 
in  the  book  of  Proverbs  of  six  things  which  the  Lord 
doth  hate ;  yea,  of  seven  that  are  an  abomination  to 
him.  But  there  is  no  implication  there,  that  those  are 
the  only  things  which  the  Lord  hates.  It  is  not  said, 
"  the  seven  things  which  the  Lord  doth  hate."  The 
language  which  I  animadvert  upon  implies  that  the 
seven  sins  enumerated  are,  if  not  exclusively,  yet  pe- 
culiarly deadly.  Now  that  is  not  the  case.  There  is 
nothing  in  those  sins  to  entitle  them  to  thi's  distinction 
above  other  sins.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
be  warned  to  avoid  them  more  than  many  others. 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  37 

I  am  surprised  that  in  the  list  of  deadly  sins  theie 
is  no  mention  of  unbelief.  Now  surely  that  must  be 
a  deadly  sin,  when  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned — shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him."  Moreover,  we  are  told  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  primarily  to  reprove  the  world  of  unbe- 
lief— and  yet  there  is  no  recognition  of  it  among  the 
deadly  sins  !  It  is  an  oversight,  which  no  wonder  they 
fell  into,  who,  in  making  out  their  religion,  made  no 
use  of  the  word  of  God. 

I  perceive  that  neither  heresy  nor  schism  are  in  the 
list  of  deadly  sins.  I  infer,  then,  that  to  differ  from  the 
Roman  church  in  some  particulars,  and  even  to  sepa- 
rate from  her  communion,  is  not  fatal,  even  she  her- 
self being  judge.  I  thank  her  for  the  admission. 

There  is  one  sin  which,  in  all  their  catalogues,  the 
Catholics  omit,  and  which,  I  think,  they  need  to  be  re- 
minded of.  It  is  the  sin  of  idolatry — of  worshiping 
the  creature — of  paying  divine  honors  to  something 
else  besides  God.  It  used  to  be  very  deadly,  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation.  It  doubtless  is  equally  so  under 
the  Christian.  They  had  better  beware  of  it.  They 
had  better  leave  off  praying  to  saints,  and  honoring  the 
Virgin  Mary  above  her  Son,  lest  perchance  they  fall 
into  deadly  sin. 


11.    A  Religion  without  a  Holy  Spirit. 

A  gentleman  of  intelligence,  who  was  born  of  Ca- 
tholic parents,  and  educated  in  the  Catholic  church, 
4 


38  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

but  left  it  recently  for  Protestantism  (for  some  do 
leave  the  Catholic  for  the  Protestant  church — the 
conversions  are  not  all  to  Romanism — but  we,  Pro- 
testants, don't  make  such  a  noise  about  it  when  we 
receive  a  convert ;  and  I  suppose  the  reason  is,  that  it 
is  really  no  wonder  that  a  Catholic  should  become  a 
Protestant — the  only  wonder  is,  that  any  should  re- 
main Catholics) — this  gentleman  said  to  his  brother, 
who  is  still  a  Catholic,  "  Why,  brother,  as  long  as  I 
was  a  Catholic,  I  never  knew  that  there  was  a  Holy 
Spirit." 

And  what  do  you  think  was  the  brother's  reply  ? 
"  Well,  I  don't  know  that  there  is  one  now !" 

The  narration  of  what  passed  between  these  two 
men  struck  me  with  great  force.  A  religion  without 
a  Holy  Spirit !  and  this  the  religion,  according  to  the 
computation  of  Bishop  England,  of  two  hundred  mil- 
lions of  mankind  !  It  made  me  sorry.  My  religion, 
thought  I,  would  be  very  imperfect  without  a  Holy 
Spirit.  I  want  a  Sanctifier,  as  well  as  a  Surety.  I 
want  one  to  act  internally  upon  me,  as  well  as  one  to 
act  externally  for  me.  W^hat  should  I  do  with  my 
title  to  heaven,  without  a  fitness  for  it  ?  As  a  sinner, 
I  am  equally  destitute  of  both.  There  can  be  no  hea- 
ven without  holiness.  And  whence  has  any  man  ho- 
liness but  from  the  Holy  Spirit?  And  is  it  likely  he 
will  act  where  he  is  not  acknowledged?  If  priests 
can  pardon,  as  they  say,  yet  can  they  purify  ? 

Here  were  two  men,  educated  in  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion, and  attending  weekly  the  Catholic  church,  and 
yet  never  having  heard  of  the  Holy  Spirit !  They  had 
heard  often  enough  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  this 
saint,  and  that  saint,  but  never  a  word  of  the  Holy 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  39 

Spirit,  the  Divine  Sanctifier !  But  was  it  not  their 
own  fault?  Is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  a  part 
of  the  Catholic  faith  ?  It  is — but  that  may  be,  and  yet 
the  priests  never  instruct  the  people  in  the  character 
and  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  the  necessity  of 
his  operations. 

But  had  these  men  never  been  present  at  a  baptism, 
when  water,  according  to  Christ's  direction,  with  oil, 
spittle,  &c.  as  the  church  directs,  is  applied  to  the 
body,  and  the  name  of  each  person  of  the  Trinity  is 
mentioned  ?  Yes,  but,  poor  men,  they  had  never  stu- 
died Latin.  How  should  they  know  what  Spiritus 
Sanctus  means,  when  they  hear  it  ?  Why  should  all 
the  world  be  presumed  to  understand  Latin?  Oh, 
why  should  the  worship  of  the  living  God  be  con- 
ducted in  a  dead  language  ?  But  this  is  by  the  way. 

These  men  knew  not  that  there  was  a  Holy  Spi- 
rit— why  did  they  not  know  it  ?  I  will  tell  you.  Be- 
cause so  little  is  said  of  the  Holy  Spirit  among  the 
Catholics — there  is  so  little  need  of  any  such  agent, 
according  to  their  system  !  They  do  not  believe  in  the 
necessity  of  a  change  of  heart.  Why  should  there  be 
a  Holy  Spirit?  The  priest  does  not  want  any  such 
help  to  prepare  a  soul  for  heaven.  The  Catholic  sys- 
tem is  complete  without  a  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore 
nothing  is  said  of  him  in  the  pulpit,  and  in  the  con- 
fession-box ;  and  the  sinner  is  not  directed  to  seek  his 
influences,  or  to  rely  on  his  aid.  If  I  misrepresent,  let 
it  be  shown,  and  I  will  retract.  But  if  I  am  correct  in 
the  statement  I  make,  look  at  it.  Protestant,  look  at 

it a  religion  without  a  Holy  Spirit !  Catholic,  look 

at  it,  and  obey  the  voice  from  heaven  which  says. 
*'  Come  out  of  her  my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers 


40  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues." 
This  is  one  of  her  capital  crimes.  She  does  not 
speak  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  No,  she  is  silent 
about  him  ! 


13.     Infallibility, 

Every  body  knows  that  the  Church  of  Rome  lays 
claim  to  infallibility.  She  contends  that  there  is  no 
mistake  about  her ;  that  she  cannot  err.  Now  this  very 
modest  claim  of  our  sister  of  Rome  (for  in  the  matter 
of  churches  I  reject  the  relation  of  mother  and  daugh- 
ter) I  am  constrained  to  question,  and  that  for  such 
reasons  as  the  following  : 

1.  She  cannot  herself  tell  us  where  her  infallibility 
is  to  be  found.    She  is  sure  that  she  has  it  somewhere 
about  her,  but  for  the  life  of  her  she  cannot  tell  where. 
Some  of  her  writers  say  that  it  is  with  the  Pope.  Others 
contend  that  it  resides  in  a  general  council.  And  ano- 
ther opinion  is  that  both  the  Pope  and  a  council  are 
necessary  to  it.    Now  I  think  they  ought  to  settle  it 
among  themselves  who  is  infallible,  before  they  re- 
quire us  to  believe  that  any  one  is.    Let  them^/mcZ  in- 
fallibility and  fix  it.  After  that  it  will  be  time  enough 
for  us  to  admit  its  existence.    But, 

2.  We  will  suppose  that  it  is  the  Pope  who  is  infal- 
lible— each  successive  Pope,    Well,  where  did  they 
get  their  infallibility  ?    Why,  it  was  transmitted  from 
St.  Peter,  to  be  sure.    Christ  gave  it  to  him,  and  he 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  41 

handed  it  down.  But  was  Peter  infallible  ?  There  was 
a  day  when  I  suspect  he  did  not  think  himself  infal- 
lible— when  smitten  to  the  heart  by  the  reproving  look 
of  his  Lord,  he  went  out  and  wept  bitterly.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  he  made  a  mistake,  when  he  so  confi- 
dently pronounced,  "  Though  I  should  die  with  thee, 
yet  will  I  not  deny  thee" — and  let  it  be  remembered 
that  this  was  after  Christ  had  said,  "  Thou  art  Peter, 
and  on  this  rock/'  &c. 

If  Peter  was  infallible,  I  wonder  he  did  not  at  once 
settle  the  difficulty  of  which  we  have  an  account  in 
Acts,  15.  Why  was  the  matter  suffered  to  be  debated 
in  the  presence  of  his  infallibility  ?  It  seems  that  Pe- 
ter on  that  occasion  claimed  no  pre-eminence.  Nor 
was  any  particular  deference  paid  to  him  by  the  coun- 
cil. He  related  his  experience,  precisely  as  did  Paul 
and  Barnabas.  James  seems  to  have  been  in  the  chair 
on  that  occasion.  He  speaks  much  more  like  an  infal- 
lible person  than  any  of  the  rest.  He  says,  "  Where- 
fore my  sentence  is,"  &c.  What  a  pity  it  is  for  the 
church  of  Rome  that  Peter  had  not  said  that  instead 
of  James.  We  should  never  have  heard  the  last  of  it. 
But  it  was  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  not  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  who  said  it.  It  cannot  be  helped  now.  Will 
my  Catholic  brother  take  down  his  Douay  and  read 
that  chapter  ? 

But  again,  if  Peter  was  infallible,  I  am  surprised 
that  Paul  "  withstood  him  to  the  face,  because  he  was 
to  be  blamed."  Gal.  2:11.  That  was  no  way  to  treat 
a  Pope.  But  Paul  had  always  a  spice  of  the  Protes- 
tant about  him.  And  yet  Peter  did  not  resent  Paul's 
treatment  of  him,  for  in  his  second  Epistle  he  speaks 
of  him  as  "  our  beloved  brother  Paul."  I  suppose  that 
4* 


42  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

Peter  himself  did  not  know  he  was  infallible.  Men 
do  not  always  know  themselves. 

Once  more,  if  the  superiority  among  the  disciples 
belonged  to  Peter,  it  has  struck  me  as  strange  that, 
when  a  dispute  arose  among  them  who  should  be  the 
greatest,  our  Savior  did  not  take  Peter,  instead  of  a 
little  child,  "  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,'7 
and  remind  the  others  that  the  supremacy  had  been 
given  to  him.  I  think  the  other  apostles  could  not 
have  understood  Christ  in  that  declaration,  "  Thou  art 
Peter,"  &c.  as  the  church  of  Rome  now  understands 
him,  otherwise  the  dispute  about  superiority  could 
never  have  arisen. 

Now,  according  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  Peter  be- 
ing infallible,  each  successive  Pope  inherits  his  infal- 
libility, and  therefore  never  a  man  of  them  could  err 
in  a  matter  of  faith — nor  even  the  woman  Joan,  (for  in 
the  long  list  of  Papas,  there  was  by  accident  in  the 
ninth  century  one  Mama,  though  this,  I  am  aware,  is 
denied  by  some,) — even  she  retained  none  of  the  frail- 
ty of  her  sex. 

It  is  well  for  the  church  of  Rome  that  she  does  not 
contend  that  her  popes  are  infallible  in  practice,  for 
if  she  did,  she  would  find  some  difficulty  in  reconciling 
that  doctrine  with  histoiy.  It  is  very  true  that  one  may 
err  in  practice  and  not  in  faith.  Nevertheless,  when  I 
see  a  man  very  crooked  in  practice,  I  cannot  believe 
that  he  is  always  exactly  straight  in  doctrine.  I  can- 
not believe  that  all  I  hear  from  him  is  good  and  true, 
when  what  I  see  in  him  is  false  and  bad.  Take  for 
example  such  a  one  as  Pope  Alexander  sixth ;  when 
he,  the  father  of  such  a  hopeful  youth  as  Cesar  Bor- 
gia, and  the  chief  of  ecclesiastics  too,  tells  me,  with  a 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  43 

grave  air  and  solemn  tone,  that  it  is  a  shocking  wicked 
thing  for  an  ecclesiastic  to  marry,  I  cannot  help  de- 
murring somewhat  to  the  statement  of  Cesar's  father. 
But  I  must  proceed  with  my  reasons. 

3.  If  a  man  says  one  thing  one  day,  and  the  next 
day  says  another  thing  quite  contrary  to  it,  I  am  of 
opinion  that  he  is  one  of  the  days  in  error.    But  what 
has  this  to  do  with  the  business  in  hand?    Have  not 
the  Popes  always  pronounced  the  same  thing  ?   Have 
they  ever  contradicted  each  other  ?    Ask  rather,  whe- 
ther the  wind  has  always,  ever  since  there  was  a  wind, 
blown  from  the  same  quarter.     Now  here  is  a  reason 
why  I  cannot  allow  infallibility  to  belong  to  either 
popes  or  councils. 

4.  I  would  ask  just   for  information,  how  it  was, 
when   there   were    three   contemporary  Popes,    each 
claiming  infallibility.    Had  they  it  between  them  ?  or 
which  of  them  had  it  ?  What  was  the  name  of  the  one 
that   there  was  no  mistake  about?     How  were   the 
common  people  to  ascertain  the  infallible  one?  for 
you  know  their  salvation  depended  on  their  being  in 
communion  with  the  true  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  right- 
ful successor  of  St.  Peter. 

5.  The  more  common  opinion  among  the  Catholics 
is,  I  believe,  that  the  infallibility  resides  in  a  Pope  and 
general  council  together.  Each  is  fallible  by  itself,  but 
putting  the  two  together,  they  are  infallible  !    Now  I 
admit  that  in  some  languages  two  negatives  are  equi- 
valent to  an  affirmative  j  but  I  do  not  believe  that  two 
fallibles  ever  were  or  will  be  equivalent  to  an  infalli- 
ble.  It  is  like  saying  that  two  wrongs  make  a  right. 


44  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 


13.    The  Keys. 

The  Catholics,  by  which  I  mean  Roman  Catholics, 
since,  though  a  Protestant,  I  believe  in  the  holy  Ca- 
tholic, that  is,  universal  church,  and  profess  to  be  a 
member  of  it,  at  the  same  time  that  I  waive  all  pre- 
tensions to  being  a  Roman  Catholic. — they  make  a 
great  noise  about  the  keys  having  been  given  to  Peter ; 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Well,  it  is  true 
enough — they  were  given  to  him.  The  Bible  says  so, 
and  we  Protestants  want  no  better  authority  than  the 
Bible  for  any  thing.  We  do  not  require  the  confirma- 
tion of  tradition,  and  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fa- 
thers. We  do  not  want  any  thing  to  back  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord."  Yes,  the  keys  were  given  to  Peter ;  it  is 
said  so  in  Matthew,  16  :  19.  This  is  one  of  those  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  is  not  hard  to  be  understood, 
as  even  they  of  Rome  acknowledge.  I  am  glad  our 
brethren  of  that  communion  agree  with  us  that  there 
is  something  plain  in  the  Bible ;  that  there  is  one  pas- 
sage, at  least,  in  which  private  interpretation  arrives 
at  the  same  result  which  they  reach  who  follow  in  the 
track  of  the  agreeing  fathers !  I  suppose,  if  we  could 
interpret  all  Scripture  as  much  to  the  mind  of  the  Ca- 
tholics as  we  do  this,  they  would  let  us  alone  about 
private  interpretation. 

Well,  Peter  has  got  the  keys.  What  then  ?  What 
are  keys  for  ?  To  unlock  and  open  is  one  of  the  pur- 
poses served  by  keys.  It  was  for  this  purpose,  I  sup- 
pose, that  Peter  received  them :  and  for  this  purpose 
we  find  him  using  them.  He  opened  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  that  is,  the  Gospel  Church,  or  Christian  dis- 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  45 

pensation,  as  the  phrase  "kingdom  of  heaven"  often 
signifies.  He  opened  it  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles : 
he  preached  the  first  sermon,  and  was  the  instrument 
of  making  the  first  converts  among  each.  With  one 
key  he  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  Jews,  and 
with  the  other  to  the  Gentiles.  This  was  a  distinction 
conferred  on  Peter,  it  is  true :  but  it  was  necessary 
that  some  one  of  the  twelve  should  begin  the  business 
of  preaching  the  Gospel.  The  whole  twelve  could 
not  turn  the  keys  and  open  the  door.  The  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  which  was  conferred  on  Peter 
when  the  keys  were  given  him,  was  not  confined  to 
him,  but,  as  Matthew  testifies  in  the  next  chapter  but 
one,  was  extended  to  all  the  disciples. 

Well,  Peter  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and 
what  became  of  the  keys  then  ?  Why,  there  being  no 
farther  use  for  them,  they  were  laid  aside.  I  don't 
know  what  has  become  of  them,  for  my  part.  When 
a  key  has  opened  a  door  which  is  not  to  be  shut  again, 
there  being  no  more  use  for  the  key,  it  does  not  matter 
much  what  becomes  of  it.  Hence,  in  the  history  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  hear  no  more  about  the 
keys ;  and  Peter,  in  his  Epistles,  says  never  a  word 
about  them.  He  wrote  his  second  Epistle  to  put  Chris- 
tians in  remembrance,  but  I  don't  find  him  reminding 
them  of  the  keys.  The  truth  is,  having  used  them  for 
the  purpose  for  which  they  were  given  him,  he  had 
after  that  no  more  concern  about  them. 

But  many  fancy  that  Peter  kept  these  keys  all  his 
life,  and  then  transmitted  them  to  another,  and  he  to 
a  third,  and  so  from  hand  to  hand  they  have  come 
along  down  till  what's  his  name  at  Rome  has  them 
now — the  Pope.  And  they  say  these  keys  signify  the 


46  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

, 

authority  given  to  the  church,  and  especially  to  the 
Popes.  But  t  find  no  Bible  warrant  for  this  assertion. 
Christ  does  not  say  that  he  gave  the  keys  to  Peter  to 
give  to  somebody  else,  and  Peter  does  not  say  that  he 
gave  them  to  any  body  else,  and  no  body  since  Peter 
has  been  able  to  produce  the  keys.  This  settles 
the  matter  in  my  mind.  I  want  to  know  where  the 
keys  are. 

But  some  suppose  that  Peter  took  them  to  heaven 
with  him,  and  that  he  stands  with  them  at  the  gate  of 
heaven,  as  porter,  to  admit  and  keep  out  whom  he 
will.  But  this  notion  does  not  tally  very  well  with 
certain  passages  of  Scripture.  Christ  tells  his  disci- 
ples that  he  goes  to  prepare  a  place  for  them,  and  that 
he  will  come  again  and  receive  them  unto  himself: 
John,  14  :  3.  He  will  do  it.  He  will  not  trust  the  bu- 
siness to  Peter.  "  He  that  hath  the  key  of  David,  he 
that  openeth  and  no  man  shutteth,  and  shutteth,  and 
no  man  openeth,  is  not  Peter,  but  Christ."  Rev.  3 :  7. 

But  the  Catholics  will  have  it  that  Peter  is  the  one  ; 
and  he,  having  the  keys,  they  think  that  they  will  all 
be  admitted,  while  never  a  soul  of  us,  poor  Protes- 
tants, will.  They  may  be  mistaken,  however.  1  do 
not  know  what  right  they  have  to  put  in  an  exclusive 
claim  to  Peter.  I  see  no  resemblance  between  Peter 
and  a  Roman  Catholic — none  in  the  world.  I  never 
care  to  see  a  truer  and  better  Protestant  than  I  take 
him  to  be.  But  if  he  does  stand  at  the  gate  of  heaven 
with  such  authority  as  the  Catholics  ascribe  to  him, 
yet  I  suppose  he  will  not  deny  that  he  wrote  the 
Epistles  called  his.  Well,  then,  if  he  shall  hesitate 
to  admit  Protestants,  we  shall  only  have  to  remind  him 
of  his  Epistles.  He  does  not  say  any  thing  in  them 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  47 

about  his  being  POPE.  No,  he  says,  "  The  elders  which 
are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder."  Not 
a  word  says  he  about  the  Mass,  or  the  Seven  Sacra- 
ments, or  Transubstantiation.  Let  the  reader  turn  to 
his  Epistles,  and  see  just  what  he  does  say ;  I  think 
he  will  not  find  any  thing  in  those  Epistles  to  frighten 
Protestants. 

But  there  is  still  another  supposition,  viz.  that  Peter 
is  not  perpetual  porter  of  heaven ;  but  each  Pope,  as 
he  dies,  succeeds  to  that  office — one  relieving  another. 
I  do  not  know  how  it  is,  but  I  judge,  if  all  the  Popes 
have  been  in  their  day  porters  of  Paradise,  many  of 
them  must  have  tended  outside.  They  have  not  been 
universally  the  best  of  men,  I  think  history  informs 
us.  But  I  will  not  mention  any  names. 

One  thing  more.  In  Catholic  pictures  and  prints 
(for  that  very  spiritual  religion  abounds  with  these) 
you  will  see  the  keys  of  which  we  have  been  speak- 
ing represented  as  made  to  suit  all  the  complicated 
modern  wards,  as  if  fresh  from  some  manufactory  at 
Birmingham  or  Sheffield  !  I  do  not  suppose  the  keys 
Peter  received  answered  exactly  to  this  ingenious  re- 
presentation of  them. 


14.    Tlie  Head  of  tlic  Church. 

The  church  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  a 
body.  Of  course,  therefore,  it  must  have  a  head  ;  and 
that  same  blessed  book  tells  us  who  the  head  is.  And 


48  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

who,  think  you,  is  the  head  of  the  church  ?  Who  but 
Christ  himself?  Who  else  is  fit  to  be  its  head — its 
source  of  influence  and  government  ?  I  will  produce 
the  passages  of  Scripture  in  proof  of  Christ's  headship 
presently. 

But  the  Catholics  say  that  the  Pope  is  the  head  of 
the  church.  Ah,  is  he  ?  Where  is  the  proof  that  he  is  ? 
Now  there  is  nothing  which  irritates  a  Catholic  so 
soon  as  to  ask  him  for  proof.  "  Proof,  indeed  1"  he 
says.  "  Do  you  ask  proof  of  an  infallible  church  ? 
What  is  the  use  of  infallibility,  if  we  must  prove  every 
thing  ?  These  are  truly  most  degenerate  days.  The 
time  was  when  nobody  demanded  proof;  but  now 
every  little  sprig  of  a  Protestant  must  have  reasons  to 
support  assertions.  He  calls  for  proof.  And  he  must 
have  it  from  the  Bible.  He  will  not  believe  any  thing 
in  religion  unless  some  text  can  be  cited  in  support  of 
it.  Things  have  come  to  a  pretty  pass  indeed."  It  is 
even  so.  W^e  plead  guilty  to  the  charge.  For  every 
thing  alleged  to  be  a  doctrine  of  Christianity,  we  con- 
fess we  do  require  some  proof  out  of  the  writings  of 
some  evangelist  or  apostle.  And  since  our  Catholic 
brethren  will  not  gratify  us  by  adducing  the  scriptural 
warrant  for  believing  the  Pope  or  Bishop  of  Rome  to 
be  the  head  of  the  church,  we  will  do  them  the  favor 
of  consulting  the  Scriptures  for  them.  Well,  we  begin 
with  Genesis,  and  we  go  through  to  Revelation,  search- 
ing all  the  way  for  some  proof  that  the  Pope  is  the 
head  of  the  church.  But  so  far  are  we  from  finding 
any  evidence  that  he  is  the  head  of  the  church,  that  we 
find  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  he  is  that  or  any  thing. 
We  find  no  account  of  any  such  character  as  a  Pope — 
not  a  word  about  him.  The  subject  of  the  proposition, 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  49 

that  is,  the  Pope,  does  not  seem  to  be  known  to  that 
book  at  all.  I  really  do  not  wonder  that  it  frets  a  Ca- 
tholic when  we  send  him  to  the  Bible  for  proof  that 
the  Pope  is  the  head  of  the  church. 

But  though  we  discover  nothing  in  the  Bible  about 
a  Pope,  yet  we  find  much  about  the  head  of  the  church. 
In  Ephesians,  1  :  22,  23,  Christ  is  said  to  be  "  the  head 
over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body."  Now, 
if  the  church  is  his  body,  surely  he  must  be  the  head 
of  it,  as  well  as  head  over  all  things  to  it.  Will  any 
one  say  that  the  Pope  of  Rome  is  the  head  of  Christ's 
body  ?  That  is  shocking.  And  yet  the  Catholics  are 
told  that  they  must  believe  it ;  and  seeing  they  cannot 
help  it,  they  do  somehow  or  other  contrive  to  believe 
it.  In  Eph.  5  :  23,  it  is  explicitly  declared  that  "  Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  church."  The  same  is  repeated  in 
Col.  1  :  18—"  He  (Christ)  is  the  head  of  the  body, 
the  church." 

Our  brethren  of  the  Catholic  church  have  long  been 
in  the  habit  of  asking  where  our  religion  was  before 
the  Reformation.  They  may  see  where  one  doctrine  of 
it  was  fifteen  hundred  years  before  the  Reformation. 
One  would  suppose,  from  the  way  they  talk,  that  they 
supposed  the  Bible  was  written  a  considerable  time 
after  the  Reformation,  and  that  it  was  then  got  up  to 
support  the  Protestant  heresy  !  I  might  ask  them,  but 
that  they  do  not  like  to  be  asked  questions,  lest  they 
should  not  be  able  to  answer  them,  where  their  doc- 
trine of  the  Pope's  headship  of  the  church  was  when 
the  New  Testament  was  written,  i.  e.  some  seventeen 
hundred  and  fifty  or  eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  But 
I  will  withdraw  the  question.  It  may  seem  unkind  to 
press  it. 

5 


50  THOUGHTS    OX   FOPEBT. 

Now,  since  the  Bible  says  that  Christ  is  the  head  of 
the  church,  if  the  Pope  also  is,  there  must  be  two 
heads  of  the  church.  But  there  is  only  one  body.  Why 
should  there  be  two  heads?  Is  the  church  a  monster? 
Besides,  if  there  had  been  another  head,  Christ  would 
have  been  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures  as  one  of  the 
heads  of  the  church,  or  as  a  head  of  the  church.  But 
he  is  called  the  head  of  the  church.  The  article  is  de- 
finite, denoting  only  one.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in 
the  Bible  about  another  head.  Indeed  the  language  of 
the  Bible  does  not  admit  of  there  being  another.  Yet 
the  Catholics  say  there  is  another ;  and  it  is  their  Pope. 
"  Christ  being  absent,  they  say,  it  is  necessary  there 
should  be  a  visible  human  head  to  represent  him  on 
earth."  Now  the  Pope,  they  say,  is  this  visible  head 
of  the  church — the  head  that  you  can  see.  But  is  their 
assumption  correct,  that  Christ  is  absent?  Is  he  ab- 
sent ?  Hear :  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world."  "  Where  two  or  three  are  ga- 
thered together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst 
of  them."  Was  he  absent  from  Paul  ?  He  says :  "  I 
can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengthened! 
me."  A  visible  head  !  What  do  we  want  of  a  visible 
head  ?  Of  what  use  to  us — the  part  of  the  body  here — 
is  a  head  a  way  off  at  Rome  ?  It  is  no  better  than  a 
caput  mortuum  to  us. 

But  what  if  we  admit  the  possibility  of  a  visible 
human  head  of  the  church,  who  made  the  Pope  that 
head?  Did  he  inherit  this  also  from  St.  Peter?  Was 
Peter  head  of  the  church  ?  He,  more  modest  than  his 
pretended  successors,  does  not  any  where  claim  that 
title.  I  know  the  Catholics  hold  him  to  be  the  rock — 
the  foundation  of  the  church ;  but  I  really  did  not  know 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  51 

that  they  regarded  him,  whom,  however  they  exalt, 
they  still  consider  but  as  a  mere  man,  as  capable  of 
being  head  of  the  church  too.  It  is  not  too  much  to 
speak  of  Christ  as  both  the  foundation  and  head  of 
the  church,  but  to  speak  of  Peter,  poor  Peter,  as  we 
are  accustomed  to  call  him  when  we  think  of  the 
scene  of  the  denial,  as  both  foundation  and  head  of  the 
church,  is  really  carrying  the  matter  rather  far.  How 
little  Peter  thought  he  was  both,  when  "  he  went  out 
and  wept  bitterly  !"  How  little  he  knew  of  himself! 
The  Pope  the  head  of  the  church  ! !  Then  the  church 
is  the  Pope's  body  ! !  Alas  for  the  church ! 


15.    The   Power  to   Forgive  Sins* 

Seculum  inodestum  I  rather  suppose  will  not  be  the 
designation  by  which  the  19th  century  will  be  distin- 
guished in  history  from  her  sister  centuries.  I  know 
not  whether  any  age  has  been  more  remarkable  for 
cases  of  unfounded  pretension  than  the  present.  The 
case,  however,  of  which  I  am  to  take  notice,  did  not 
originate  in  the  19th  century.  It  has  existed  many 
hundred  years.  I  do  not  wonder  at  its  surviving  the 
dark  ages,  but  that  it  should  have  lived  so  far  into  the 
luminous  19th  does  somewhat  surprise  me.  The  pre- 
tension to  which  I  allude  is  that  made  by  the  Catholic 
priesthood.  What  do  you  think  it  is  which  they  pre- 
tend they  can  do  ?  Forgive  sins.  They  pretend  that 
they  have  power  over  sins,  to  remit  or  retain  them. 


52  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

They  claim  that  the  prerogative  of  pardon  is  lodged 
with  them.  And  that  is  the  reason  why  they  receive 
confessions.  Confession  to  a  priest  would  be  a  farce, 
if  it  was  not  thought  that  he  could  forgive. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  me  is  the  contrariety  of 
this  notion  to  common  sense.  The  idea  of  being  par- 
doned by  any  other  than  the  being  offended,  seems 
absurd.  What !  a  fellow-sinner  of  a  priest  pardon 
sins  against  God  !  It  is  as  if  of  two  debtors,  one  should 
play  the  creditor  and  forgive  the  other  his  debt,  with- 
out any  consultation  with  the  real  creditor.  That 
would  be  a  strange  way  of  getting  rid  of  debts.  I  al- 
ways thought  he  to  whom  the  debt  is  due  ought  to 
have  a  say  in  the  matter  of  remitting  it.  If  I  had 
disposed  of  a  debt  in  that  manner  I  should  always  be 
afraid  that  it  would  some  day  or  other  be  exacted — 
that  the  real  creditor  would  appear  and  make  his  de- 
mand. Then  it  would  be  a  poor  come  off  for  me  to 
say  that  my  fellow-debtor  forgave  me  the  debt.  I  will 
tell  you  what  I  expect.  I  expect  that  a  great  deal 
which  the  priests  forgive  will  be  exacted  notwith- 
standing. Catholics  talk  of  going  to  the  priest  and 
getting  their  old  scores  wiped  off,  just  as  if  it  were 
but  a  slate  and  pencil  memorandum,  which  any  one 
can  rub  out.  The  sin  of  man  is  not  thus  recorded.  It 
is  "  written  with  a  pen  of  iron,  and  with  the  point  of  a 
diamond."  It  is  not  so  easily  obliterated. 

But  is  there  not  Scripture  in  support  of  the  priests5 
claim?  See  John,  20  :  23.  Does  not  Christ  say  to  his 
disciples:  "Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  re- 
mitted unto  them;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained  ?"  Yes,  he  says  that  to  his  disciples 
— the  apostles.  But  pray,  what  right  have  the  priests 


THOUGHTS   ON     POPERY.  53 

to  found  a  claim  of  theirs  on  a  grant  made  to  the  apos- 
tles? They  do  indeed  come  after  the  apostles,  but 
they  are  their  successors  in  no  other  sense.  I  should 
like  to  know  how  the  priests  prove  that  they  inherit 
the  apostolical  power  of  remitting  sins.  But  I  forget 
that  they  scorn  a  resort  to  proof. 

The  power  communicated  in  that  grant  to  the  apos- 
tles was  merely  ministerial  and  declarative.  It  was 
no  less  true  after  than  before  that  grant  was  made,  that 
none  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only.  That  the  power 
was  declarative  merely,  that  is,  that  the  apostles  were 
empowered  to  remit  and  retain  sins  only  as  they  were 
authorized  and  enabled  to  make  a  correct  statement  to 
mankind  of  the  way  and  means  of  salvation,  to  ex- 
press the  conditions  of  pardon  and  condemnation,  and 
to  propose  the  terms  of  life  and  death,  is  clear  to  me 
from  the  fact  that  the  conferring  of  it  was  immedi- 
ately preceded  by  the  Savior's  breathing  on  them, 
and  saying,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now, 
this  communication  of  the  Spirit  qualified  them  for 
the  declarative  remission  and  retention  of  sins.  They 
were  thereby  inspired  to  pronounce  on  what  grounds 
sins  are  remitted  and  retained  by  God. 

This  was  the  power  over  sins  granted  to  the  apos- 
tles, and  I  shall  show  presently  that  this  declarative 
power  is  all  they  pretend  ever  to  have  exercised.  Now, 
the  priests  have  no  right  to  claim  even  this  power,  ex- 
cept in  that  subordinate  sense  in  which  it  is  possessed 
by  all  who  are  authorized  to  preach  the  Gospel.  Did 
Christ  ever  breathe  on  them,  and  say  to  them,  "  Re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  that  they  should  claim 
equality  with  the  apostles  ?  The  effect  of  the  inspi- 
ration is  not  so  manifest  in  the  case  of  the  priests  as 
5* 


54  THOUGHTS    ON     POPERY. 

it  was  in  the  case  of  the  apostles,  if  I  may  be  permit- 
ted to  express  an  opinion. 

But  the  priests  claim  far  more  than  ever  entered 
the  thoughts  of  the  apostles.  They  are  not  satisfied 
with  the  ministerial  and  declarative  power  over  sins. 
They  claim  a  magisterial  and  authoritative  power 
to  remit  and  retain  them.  Consequently  they  call 
sinners  to  come  and  confess  their  sins  to  them.  Did 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles,  the  very  men  to  whom 
Christ  said,  "whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,"  &c.  ever 
do  such  a  thing  ?  You  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles of  synagogues  and  proseuches,  or  places  of  prayer, 
but  do  you  find  any  thing  about  confession-boxes  there? 
Does  there  seem  to  have  been  any  thing  auricular  in 
the  transactions  of  the  day  of  Pentecost? 

There  is  the  case  of  Simon  Magus  that  strikes  me 
as  in  point.  If  Peter  and  John  had  had  the  power  of 
forgiving  sin,  could  they  not  have  exercised  it  in  favor 
of  Simon  ?  But  we  find  Peter  addressing  him  just  as 
any  Protestant  minister  would  have  done :  "  Repent 
therefore  of  this  thy  wickedness,  and  pray  God,  if  per- 
haps the  thought  of  thine  heart  may  be  forgiven  thee." 
How  differently  the  Roman  priest  would  have  done ! 
He  would  have  said,  "  Well,  Simon,  and  what  have 
you  to  say  for  yourself?  Ah,  that  is  very  bad,  very 
bad.  But  if  you  are  sorry,  Simon,  I  forgive  you.  Only 
I  cannot  let  you  off  without  doing  some  penance. 
You  must  say  so  many  paternosters,  and  you  must 
not  eat  meat  for  so  many  days."  This  is  the  way  in 
which  the  boasted  successors  of  Peter  manage  these 
matters.  But,  they  will  say,  Simon  was  not  penitent, 
otherwise  perhaps  Peter  would  have  pardoned  him. 
But  I  wonder  if  pardon  would  have  waited  for  Peter's 


THOUGHTS   ON     POPERY.  55 

action  in  the  matter,  if  there  had  been  penitence  in 
the  heart  of  the  sorcerer.  I  suspect  not.  I  suspect 
the  gracious  Lord,  when  he  sees  contrition  in  any 
soul,  does  not  withhold  pardon  till  a  priest  or  even  an 
apostle  shall  intervene  and  act  in  the  matter.  And 
when  the  good  angels  have  ascertained  that  a  sinner 
has  repented,  I  rather  suppose  they  do  not  suspend 
their  rejoicing  until  he  has  gone  to  confession,  and 
has  got  absolution  from  the  priest. 

What  a  glorious  book  the  Bible  is !  I  wish  the  au- 
thorities of  the  Catholic  church  would  condescend  to 
strike  it  off  the  list  of  prohibited  books,  and  allow  the 
Lord  to  speak  to  his  creatures.  I  wish  they  would 
let  their  people,  the  many  thousands  that  on  the  Sab- 
bath crowd  their  chapels  and  cathedrals,  read,  or  hear 
what  Jehovah  says  to  "  every  one  "  in  that  wonderful 
chapter,  the  55th  of  Isaiah.  It  is  indeed  a  wonderful 
chapter.  But  the  Catholics  don't  know  any  thing 
about  it.  No ;  and  they  have  never  heard  of  that  pre- 
cious and  glorious  verse,  the  18th  of  the  1st  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  in  which  thus  saith  the  Lord  to  the  sinner, 
"Come  now,  and  let  us"  (you  and  I,  sinner  !)  "rea- 
son together."  And  then  follows  the  reasoning, 
"  though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as 
white  as  snow ;  though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they 
shall  be  as  wool."  Ask  the  awakened  sinner,  or  the 
recently  pardoned,  what  he  would  take  for  that  pas- 
sage. He  esteems  it  above  all  price  ;  and  to  the  Chris- 
tian it  becomes  every  day  more  and  more  a  theme  of 
wonder  and  delight.  But  the  Catholics  don't  know 
that  the  Lord  has  ever  made  any  such  kind  and  con- 
descending proposal  to  his  creatures.  They  never 
hear  of  the  call  of  God  to  come  and  reason  with  him. 


56  THOUGHTS    ON     POPERY. 

The  only  "  come "  they  hear  is  the  priest's   call.     I 
pity  them. 

But  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  priests  treat  the  people 
as  they  do,  for  if  they  allowed  them  to  know  what  the 
Lord  says  to  them,  they  would  be  very  apt  to  go  di- 
rectly to  God  in  Christ,  and  leave  the  priest  out  of  the 
question.  And  then  where  would  be  the  importance 
of  the  priest  ?  and  his  emolument,  where  ? 


16.    A   Catholic   Book   Reviewed. 

I  happened  to  lay  my  hand  the  other  day  on  a  little 
book  entitled,  "  The  Christian's  Guide  to  Heaven,  a 
Manual  for  Catholics,"  to  which  was  appended  some 
hymns.  The  book  was  published  in  Baltimore  by  a 
respectable  Catholic  bookseller,  and  under  the  sanction 
of  the  Archbishop.  Well,  said  I  to  myself,  this  is  good 
authority.  I  will  look  into  this  book.  I  know  what 
Protestants  say  of  Catholics.  I  will  see  now  what 
Catholics  say  of  themselves.  Men  cannot  complain 
when  we  take  their  own  account  of  themselves  ;  and 
I  like  the  way  of  judging  people  out  of  their  own 
mouths,  because  it  shuts  their  mouths  so  far  as  reply 
is  concerned.  I  resolved  that  I  would  compare  the 
statements  and  doctrines  of  this  book  professing  to  be 
a  guide  to  heaven,  with  the  statements  and  doctrines 
of  that  bigger  book  which  is  the  Protestant's  guide  to 
heaven.  You  will  know  that  I  mean  the  Bible.  That 
is  our  manual — that  the  guide  we  consult  and  follow. 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  57 

However,  if  a  book  agrees  with  the  Bible,  that  is 
enough. 

So  I  began  to  read  ;  and  one  of  the  first  things  that 
I  came  to  was,  "  Conditions  of  plenary  indulgences." 
Indulgences  !  thought  I.  What  does  a  Christian  want 
of  indulgences  ?  He  is  apt  enough  to  indulge  him- 
self. And  how  are  indulgences  to  help  him  to  hea- 
ven? I  should  rather  pronounce  self-denial  the  road. 
Indulgences  not  partial,  but  plenary  !  I  should  think 
plenary  indulgence  on  any  condition  was  enough  to 
ruin  one.  If  by  indulgence  the  Catholics  mean  par- 
don, they  have  chosen  an  unfortunate  way  to  express 
it.  Why  not  say  full  pardon,  instead  of  plenary  in- 
dulgence ?  But  I  suppose  pardon  expresses  what  God 
exercises,  and  indulgence  what  the  church  grants.  I 
should  like  to  know,  however,  what  right  the  church 
has  to  grant  any  thing  of  the  kind. 

Well,  the  conditions  enumerated  were  four.  I  took 
note  only  of  the  first,  which  was  in  these  words  :  "  To 
confess  their  sins  with  a  sincere  repentance  to  a  priest 
approved  by  the  bishop."  This  begins  very  well,  and 
goes  on  well  for  a  time.  Confession  of  sin,  with  sin- 
cere repentance,  is  truly  a  condition  of  pardon.  "If 
we  confess  our  sins,  He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive 
us  our  sins."  But  what  a  pity  the  condition  did  not 
stop  there,  or  if  any  thing  was  added  in  regard  to  the 
object  of  the  confession,  that  it  did  not  designate  God 
as  the  being  to  whom  the  sins  should  be  confessed. 
The  sins  are  all  done  against  him,  and  why  should 
they  not  be  told  to  him  ?  I  cannot  get  rid  of  the  no- 
tion that  we  ought  to  confess  our  sins  to  God,  the  be- 
ing whom  we  have  offended  by  them.  But  no,  says 
this  guide  to  heaven,  the  confession  must  be  made  to 


58  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

a  priest ;  it  is  good  for  nothing  without  it.  If  the  pub- 
lican, of  whom  we  read,  had  lived  now,  it  would  have 
been  quite  irregular,  according  to  the  Catholic  notion, 
that  he  should  have  gone  down  to  his  house  justified, 
when  he  confessed  only  to  God.  And  the  penitent 
must  take  care  what  sort  of  a  priest  it  is  to  whom  he 
confesses,  else  he  might  as  well  remain  impenitent. 
It  must  be  a  priest  approved  by  the  bishop.  Well, 
now,  this  is  a  queer  arrangement,  that  our  pardon 
should  be  suspended  on  such  a  condition — that  angels, 
in  other  words,  must  \vait  before  they  express  any  joy 
that  a  sinner  has  repented,  until  he  has  gone  and  told 
his  sins  to  a  priest  approved  by  a  bishop  !  Who  sus- 
pended it  there,  I  wonder  ?  Not  Isaiah.  Read  his  55th 
chapter.  Nor  Peter,  nor  Solomon,  nor  John,  nor  Paul. 
Read  them  and  see.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Bible 
about  confessing  to  a  priest.  So  I  found  that  the  two 
guides  did  not  agree  in  this  matter.  The  Catholic 
Manual  said  the  confession  must  be  to  a  priest ;  but 
the  holy  Scriptures  insist  on  no  such  thing,  but  direct 
that  the  confession  be  made  to  God. 

This  thought  occurred  to  me :  What  if  a  sinner  con- 
fess his  sins  with  a  sincere  repentance,  though  not  to 
a  priest,  what  is  to  be  done  with  his  soul  ?  Must  par- 
don be  denied  him,  and  he  be  consigned  to  perdition, 
because,  though  he  confessed  penitently,  yet  he  did  it 
not  to  a  priest  ?  Really  this  is  making  rather  too  much 
of  the  priest.  It  is  making  too  important  a  character 
of  him  altogether.  I  do  not  believe  that  our  salvation 
is  so  dependent  on  the  deference  we  pay  the  priest. 

Before  the  conditions,  on  one  of  which  I  have  been 
remarking,  are  mentioned,  there  is  this  general  state- 
ment :  "  Plenary  indulgences  granted  to  the  faithful 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY*  59 

throughout  these  states,  at  the  following  times  ;"  and 
then  follows  a  specification  of  nine  different  seasons 
when  plenary  indulgences  may  be  had.  I  did  not  know 
before  that  pardons  were  confined  to  any  set  times  ;  I 
always  supposed  that  they  might  be  had  summer  and 
winter,  night  and  day,  and  at  any  hour  of  either — in 
short,  whenever  a  penitent  heart  breathes  its  desire  to 
God.  My  mistake  must  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that 
I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  consulting  the  Bible  on 
these  matters.  I  never  saw  "  The  Christian's  Guide 
to  Heaven  "  before  in  my  life.  I  have  always  used  the 
Bible  as  a  guide,  for  want  of  a  better. 

Now  that  I  am  on  the  subject  of  confession,  I  may 
as  well  make  another  reference  to  the  manual.  There 
is  an  article  or  chapter  headed  "  The  Confiteor."  In 
it  the  person  wishing  to  be  guided  to  heaven  makes 
this  confession,  from  which  it  will  appear  that  Catho- 
lics do  not  confine  their  confessions  to  the  priest,  but 
extend  them  to  many  other  beings  :  "  I  confess  to  Al- 
mighty God,  to  blessed  Mary,  ever  virgin,  to  blessed 
Michael  the  archangel,  to  blessed  John  the  Baptist,  to 
the  holy  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  all  the  saints, 
that  I  have  sinned."  Now,  I  do  not  see  the  use  of 
naming  so  many.  The  confession,  I  think,  should  have 
stopped  with  the  first  mentioned — Almighty  God. 
What  have  the  rest  to  do  with  it  ?  How  is  it  any  of 
their  business?  The  person  has  not  sinned  against 
them.  Surely  every  sinner  may  say  to  God,  "  Against 
thee,  thee  ONLY  have  I  sinned,"  since  David  could. 
Besides,  this  coupling  of  these  creatures  with  the 
Creator,  as  worthy  equally  with  himself  to  receive  our 
confessions  of  sin,  savors  strongly  of  idolatry.  Con- 
fession is  made  to  them  on  the  same  principle  that 


60  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

prayer  is.  Each  is  an  act  of  worship— one  of  those 
things  which  should  be  confined  exclusively  to  God. 
I  wonder  the  Catholics  will  not  be  satisfied  with  one 
great  and  glorious  object  of  worship,  God,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit.  Why  will  they  in  their  devotions  as- 
sociate creatures  with  the  Creator  ?  The  book  I  am 
reviewing  contains  numerous  and  very  offensive  ex- 
amples of  it.  I  shall  continue  the  review  in  my  next. 


17. ,  The  Review  of  the  Catholic  Book  continued. 

The  next  thing  that  struck  me  as  worthy  of  notice 
in  the  perusal  of  the  book  was  this — that  the  devout 
Catholic  is  represented  as  making  the  following  so- 
lemn declaration  concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures : 
"  Neither  will  I  ever  take  and  interpret  them  other- 
wise than  according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
fathers."  I  smiled  when  I  read  this,  and  I  thought 
within  myself,  if  that  is  his  determination,  he  will  not 
be  likely  ever  to  take  them  at  all.  What  an  intention 
this,  which  the  Catholic  expresses — never  to  attach 
any  meaning  to  a  passage  which  he  may  read  in  the 
Bible,  until  he  has  first  ascertained  whether  certain 
ancient  persons  called  the  fathers  all  agreed  in  any 
interpretation  of  it,  and  if  so,  what  that  interpretation 
is !  What  should  give  such  authority  and  weight  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  fathers  ?  Why  cannot  we  as- 
certain what  the  Bible  means  as  well  as  they  could  ? 
What  helps  had  they  which  we  have  not  ?  and  why 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  61 

require  that  they  be  unanimous?  What  a  roundabout 
method  this  of  finding  out  what  a  book  means  !  First, 
the  reader  has  got  to  ascertain  who  are  entitled  to  be 
called  fathers.  He  must  make  out  a  list  of  them  all, 
If  one  is  overlooked,  it  vitiates  the  interpretation,  though 
all  the  rest  should  agree  in  it.  But  supposing  him  to 
have  got  a  catalogue  of  the  whole  number  from  Bar- 
nabas to  Bernard,  the  next  step  in  the  process  is  to 
ascertain  how  they  all  interpreted  the  Bible.  For  this 
purpose  he  must  pore  over  their  works.  But  some  of 
them  left  iu  works  behind  them.  How  shall  he  ever 
find  out  what  they  thought  of  this  and  that  passage  of 
Scripture  ?  And  yet  he  must  somehow  or  other  ascer- 
tain their  opinions,  else  how  can  he  compare  them 
with  the  opinions  of  the  other  fathers,  and  discover 
their  agreement  with  them  ?  For  you  will  remember 
the  consent  must  be  unanimous.  Others  of  the  fathers 
left  works  behind  them,  but  they  have  not  come  down 
to  us.  How  shall  the  reader  of  the  Bible  know  what 
those  lost  works  contained  ?  Yet  he  must  know  what 
they  thought,  else  how  can  he  be  sure  that  they  thought 
in  accordance  with  the  views  of  those  fathers  whose 
works  are  preserved  to  us.  I  cannot  see  how  this  dif- 
ficulty is  to  be  got  over,  for  my  part.  It  is  altogether 
beyond  me.  But  supposing  it  to  be  surmounted,  there 
remains  the  task  of  comparing  the  opinions  of  all  these 
Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  to  the  number  of  a  hundred 
or  two,  one  with  another,  to  see  if  they  all  agree ;  for 
the  consent,  you  know,  must  be  unanimous.  Those 
parts  of  Scripture  in  the  interpretation  of  which  they 
did  not  agree,  are  to  go  for  nothing.  Indeed,  if  ninety- 
nine  should  be  found  to  accord  in  a  particular  inter- 
pretation, it  must  be  rejected  if  the  hundredth  father 


62  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

had  a  different  opinion  of  its  meaning.  I  cannot  help 
thinking  that  it  is  the  better,  as  certainly  it  is  the 
shorter  and  easier  method,  just  for  every  one  to  take 
up  and  "  search  the  Scriptures,"  and  "  if  any  lack 
wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all  men 
liberally." 

As  the  case  is,  I  do  not  wonder  that  the  Catholics 
do  not  read  the  Bible.  They  have  not  come  to  that 
yet.  They  are  still  among  the  fathers,  searching  out 
and  comparing  their  opinions,  so  as  to  know  how  t& 
take  the  Bible.  By  and  by,  if  they  live  long  enough, 
when  they  have  ascertained  what  the  fathers  agreed 
on,  they  may  go  to  reading  the  Scriptures. 

It  seems  odd  that  one  cannot,,  without  mortal  sin, 
attach  a  meaning  to  such  a  passage  as  John,  3  :  16, 
"  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life,"  until  he  has 
first  ascertained  what  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Hilary,  both 
the  Gregorys,  and  indeed  all  the  fathers  thought  of 
it,  and  whether  they  agreed  in  their  interpretation  of 
it.  How  any  one  can  read  it  without  understanding 
it  in  spite  of  himself,  I  cannot  see.  Ah,  but  they  say 
the  Scriptures  are  so  obscure.  And  are  the  fathers  so 
very  clear  ?  Why  cannot  we  understand  the  Greek 
of  John  and  Paul,  as  well  as  that  of  Chrysostom  ? 

The  thing  which  next  attracted  my  observation  in 
the  book  was  the  following :  "  In  the  Mass  there  is  of- 
fered to  God  a  true,  proper,  and  propitiatory  sacrifice 
for  the  living  and  the  dead."  The  Mass  !  and  what 
is  that  ?  The  Bible  could  not  tell  me.  So  I  had  to 
resort  to  the  dictionary.  It  is  the  name  which  the 
Catholics  give  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper; 


THOUGHTS   ON     POPERY.  63 

or  rather  to  the  half  of  it ;  for  you  know  they  divide  it, 
and  giving  the  bread  to  the  people,  do  with  the  wine 
I  cannot  tell  what.  They  say  that  it  is  perfect  in  one 
kind,  and  anathematize  all  who  say  it  is  not.  Their 
curse  is  on  me  now  while  I  am  writing.  Neverthe- 
less I  must  ask,  if  it  was  perfect  in  one  kind,  why  did 
Christ  institute  it  in  both  kinds  ?  Why  did  he  not 
stop  with  the  bread,  reserving  the  cup  ?  Was  it  to 
make  the  sacrament  more  than  perfect  ?  &But  this  is 
reasoning.  I  forget  myself.  The  Catholics  don't 
hold  to  reasoning. 

An  idea  occurs  to  me  here  which  I  beg  leave  to  ex- 
press. If  the  sacrament  is  perfect  in  either  kind,  why 
do  not  the  priests  sometimes  give  the  people  the  cup  ? 
Why  do  they  always  give  them  the  bread  ?  And  why 
originally  did  they  withhold  the  cup  rather  than  the 
bread?  Some  persons  may  imagine  a  reason,  but  I 
will  content  myself  with  asking  the  question. 

But  to  proceed.  They  say  that  "  in  the  Mass  there 
is  offered  to  God"  &c.  Why,  what  do  they  mean ? 
There  is  nothing  offered  to  God.  What  is  offered  is 
to  men.  Christ  says,  offering  to  his  disciples  the 
bread,  "  take,  eat,"  and  reaching  out  the  cup,  he  says, 
"  drink  ye  all  of  it."  There  is  something  offered  to 
men  in  this  sacrament,  even  the  precious  memorials 
of  the  Savior's  propitiatory  death  ;  but  every  one  who 
reads  the  account,  sees  that  there  is  nothing  offered  to 
God.  Yet  the  Catholics,  leaning  on  tradition,  say 
there  is  in  it  "  a  true,  proper  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  " 
offered  to  God.  A  sacrifice  included  in  the  sacra- 
ment! How  is  that?  And  a  propitiatory  sacrifice 
too!  I  always  supposed  that  propitiatory  sacrifices 
ceased  with  the  offering  up  of  the  Great  Sacrifice — 


64  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

when  the  Lamb  of  God  bled  and  died.  Do  we  not 
read,  that  "  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever 
them  that  are  sanctified,"  "  now  once  in  the  end  of 
the  world  hath  he  ap  )eared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  himself  ?"  ;'  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many" — and  it  is  said  of  his  blood  that  it 
"  cleanseth  from  all  sin."  I  don't  know  what  we  want 
after  this,  of  those  unbloody  sacrifices  which  the  Ca- 
tholics talk  of  as  offered  continually  in  the  service  of 
the  Mass.  What  is  the  use  of  them,  if  they  are  un- 
bloody,  as  they  say,  since  "  without  shedding  of  blood 
is  no  remission?" 

According  to  the  Catholics,  it  was  premature  in 
Christ  to  say  on  the  cross,  "  it  is  finished."  They 
deny  that  it  is  finished.  They  say  it  is  going  on  still — 
that  Christ  is  offered  whenever  Mass  is  said.  Once 
Christ  was  offered,  the  Bible  says ;  but  the  Roman 
church  affirms  that  he  is  offered  many  times  daily ; 
whenever  and  wherever  mass  is  said ! 

I  do  really  wonder  that  this  religion  has  lasted  so 
long  in  the  world.  How  the  human  mind  can  enter- 
tain it  for  a  day,  I  do  not  know.  See  how  at  every 
step  it  conflicts  with  reason.  See  in  how  many  points 
it  does  violence  to  common  sense.  See,  in  this  case, 
how  boldly  it  contradicts  the  dying  declaration  of  the 
Savior.  It  is  a  religion  unknown  to  the  Bible — and 
yet  still  in  existence,  aye,  and  they  say,  making  pro- 
gress^ and  that  even  in  this  home  of  freedom !  If  it  be 
so,  which  I  question,  I  blush  that  I  am  an  American, 
and  am  almost  ashamed  that  I  am  a  man. 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  65 


18.    The   Pope   an  Idolater* 

It  may  seem  a  very  uncharitable  title  I  give  this  ar- 
ticle. What,  some  will  say,  charge  the  Pope  with  be- 
ing an  idolater!  What  do  you  mean?  I  mean  just 
what  I  say,  that  this  boasted  head  of  the  church,  and 
self-styled  vicar  of  Christ,  residing  at  Rome,  ascribes 
divine  attributes,  and  pays  divine  honors  to  a  creature, 
even  to  a  human  being,  a  partaker  in  our  mortality 
and  sin !  and  if  that  is  not  idolatry,  I  don't  know  what 
idolatry  is.  If  that  is  not  idolatry,  the  worship  of  the 
golden  calf  was  not — the  worship  of  the  host  of  hea- 
ven was  not — the  worship  of  the  gods  of  Hindooism 
is  not.  What  truer  definition  of  idolatry  can  be  given 
than  that  it  is  an  ascribing  of  divine  attributes,  and  a 
paying  of  divine  honors  to  a  creature  ?  It  does  not  mat- 
ter what  the  creature  is,  whether  it  be  the  angel  nearest 
the  throne  of  God,  or  an  onion  that  grows  in  the  gar- 
den, such  as  they  of  Egypt  once  worshiped.  It  is  its 
being  a  created  thing — it  is  its  being  not  God.  that 
makes  the  service  done  it  idolatry. 

But  can  I  make  good  this  charge  against  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter,  as  they  call  him?  If  I  cannot,  I 
sin  not  merely  against  charity,  but  against  truth.  But 
I  can  establish  it.  Nor  will  I  derive  the  proof  from 
the  Pope's  enemies ;  nor  will  I  look  for  it  in  the  his- 
tories of  the  Papacy.  The  Pope  himself  shall  supply 
me  with  the  proof.  Out  of  his  own  mouth  will  I  judge 
him.  If  his  own  words  do  not  convict  him  of  idolatry, 
believe  it  not.  But  if  they  do,  away  with  the  objec- 
tion that  it  is  an  offence  against  charity  to  speak  of 
such  a  thing  as  the  Pope's  being  an  idolater.  My  cha- 
6* 


00  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

rity  "  rejoiceth  in  the  truth."  The  charge  can  be  un- 
charitable only  by  being  untrue.  It  is  too  late  in  the 
day,  I  trust,  for  idolatry  to  find  an  apologist.  But  to 
the  proof.  Perhaps  you  suppose  it  is  some  obscure 
Pope  of  the  night  of  times — the  dark  ages,  that  I  am 
going  to  prove  an  idolater.  No,  it  is  a  Pope  of  the 
nineteenth  century — the  present  reigning  Pope,  Gre- 
gory XVI.  He  is  the  idolater ;  and  here  are  his  own 
words  in  proof  of  it.  They  are  a  part  of  the  circular, 
or  f  :;cyclical  letter,  sent  forth  by  him  on  entering  on 
his  office,  and  addressed  to  all  Patriarchs,  Primates, 
Archbishops,  and  Bishops.  The  letter  may  be  found 
in  the  Laity's  Directory,  1833,  and  has  been  extensive- 
ly published  without  any  of  its  statements  being  con- 
tradicted. In  it  the  Pope  calls  upon  all  the  clergy  to 
implore  "  that  SHE,  (the  Virgin  Mary,)  who  has  been, 
through  every  great  calamity,  our  Patroness  and  Pro- 
tectress, may  watch  over  us  writing  to  you,  and  lead 
our  mind  by  her  heavenly  influence,  to  those  counsels 
which  may  prove  most  salutary  to  Christ's  flock !"  Is 
comment  necessary  ?  Observe,  he  recognizes  not  God 
as  having  been  their  defence,  but  her  as  having  been 
their  protectress  in  past  calamities,  and  directs  the 
clergy  to  pray  to  her  to  continue  her  watch  over  them  ! 
As  contrast  is  one  of  the  principles  on  which  ideas  are 
associated,  I  was  reminded  in  reading  this,  of  the  121st 
Psalm,  in  which  the  writer  speaks  of  the  one  "  that 
keepeth  Israel."  It  is  not  she,  according  to  the  Psalmist, 
but  He,  the  Lord  which  made  heaven  and  earth,  that 
keepeth  Israel.  But,  according  to  the  Pope,  it  is  the 
Virgin  Mary  that  keeps  Israel ;  and  he  speaks  of  her 
as  exerting  a  heavenly  influence  on  the  mind.  I  al- 
ways thought  it  was  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  Je- 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  67 

hovah  to  have  access  to  the  mind,  and  to  exert  an  im- 
mediate influence  on  it ;  and  I  cannot  but  think  now 
that  the  Pope  must  err  in  this  matter,  though  he 
speaks  ex  cathedra.  I  cannot  believe  he  was  exactly 
infallible  when  he  wrote  that  letter. 

But  you  have  not  heard  the  worst  of  it  yet.  In  the 
same  letter  he  says  :  "  But  that  all  may  have  a  suc- 
cessful and  happy  issue,  let  us  raise  our  eyes  to  the 
most  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  who  alone  destroys  here- 
sies, who  is  our  greatest  hope,  yea,  THE  ENTIRE  GROUND 
OF  OUR  HOPE  !"  The  underscoring  is  mine,  but  the 
words  are  the  Pope'«.  Now,  just  look  at  this.  Did  you 
ever  hear  any  thing  like  it  ?  Observe  what  Mary  is  said 
to  be  and  to  do ;  and  what  the  clergy  are  exhorted  to 
do.  The  Pope's  religion  cannot  be  the  oldest,  as  they 
pretend.  It  is  not  the  religion  of  the  Psalms.  In  the 
12 1st  Psalm  the  writer  says  :  "  /  will  lift  up  mine 
eyes  unto  the  hills,  from  whence  cometh  my  help. 
My  help  cometh  from  the  Lord."  And  in  the  123d, 
"  Unto  thee  lift  I  up  mine  eyes,  O  thou  that  dwellest 
in  the  heavens.  Behold,  as  the  eyes  of  servants  look 
unto  the  hand  of  their  masters,  and  as  the  eyes  of  a 
maiden  unto  the  hand  of  her  mistress ;  so  our  eyes 
wait  upon  the  Lord  our  God,  until  that  he  have  mer- 
cy upon  us."  But  the  Pope  says  :  "  Let  us  raise  our 
eyes  to  the  most  blessed  Virgin  Mary."  There  is  the 
difference  between  the  Pope  and  the  Psalmist.  Pro- 
testants in  this  case  side  with  the  Psalmist ;  and  in 
this  particular  our  religion  is  not  only  older  than  Lu- 
ther, but  older  even  than  the  Pope. 

I  would  inquire  of  the  reader  whether  these  prayers 
which  the  Pope  would  have  the  whole  church  address 
to  the  Virgin  Mary,  are  not  precisely  such  as  are  pro- 


68  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

per  to  be  addressed  to  God,  and  which  others  do  ad- 
dress to  him  ?  Do  they  not  ask  of  her  just  what  oughl 
to  be  asked  of  Him,  and  what  he  alone  can  give  ?  A  f- 
ter  asking  such  things  as  the  Catholics  are  directed 
to  ask  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  what  remains  to  be  asked 
of  God  in  prayer?  And  is  not  this  putting  a  creature 
in  the  place  of  God  ?  Indeed,  is  it  not  putting  God 
quite  out  of  the  question?  The  eyes  are  raised  in 
prayer  to  the  Virgin,  and  they  are  lifted  no  higher. 
There  they  fix.  Is  not  this  idolatry  ?  And  you  see  he 
is  not  satisfied  himself  with  being  an  idolater,  but  he 
wants  the  entire  clergy,  and  of  course  the  whole  Ca- 
tholic church,  to  join  him  in  his  idolatry  ! 

I  wish  the  Pope  had  explained  how  the  blessed  Vir- 
gin destroys  heresies.  He  says  she  does  it,  and  she 
alone.  I  should  think  it  rather  belonged  to  "  the  Spirit 
of  Truth"  to  destroy  heresies,  and  to  "guide  into  all 
truth."  But  no,  says  the  Pope,  the  Spirit  of  Truth  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  is  all  done  by  the  blessed 
Virgin  !  She  "  alone  destroys  heresies." 

The  Catholics  complain  that  we  call  their  Pope 
Antichrist.  But  I  would  appeal  to  any  one  to  say  if 
he  is  not  Antichrist,  who,  overlooking  Christ  altoge- 
ther, says  of  another,  that  she  is  "  our  greatest  hope, 
yea,  the  entire  ground  of  our  hope  ?"  Is  not  that  against 
Christ  ?  The  Bible  speaks  of  him  as  "  our  hope,"  1 
Tim.  1  :  1 ;  yea,  of  him  as  our  only  hope ;  for  "  other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is 
Jesus  Christ."  1  Cor.  3  :  11.  "  Neither  is  there  salva- 
tion in  any  other  "  Acts,  4  :  12.  It  would  seem  from 
this,  that  Christ  is  the  ground  of  hope.  But  not  so, 
says  the  Pope ;  the  blessed  Virgin  is  "  the  entire  ground 
of  our  hope."  By  the  way,  I  should  not  be  surprised  if 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  69 

that  hope  should  disappoint  its  possessor.  Now,  is  not 
the  Pope  Antichrist  ?  Well,  if  he  is  an  idolater  and 
Antichrist,  ought  he  to  be  adhered  to  ?  What  sort  of 
a  body  must  that  be,  which  has  such  a  head  ?  I  think 
I  should  not  like  to  be  a  member  of  it.  And  I  must 
confess  that  I  am  against  such  a  person  having  any 
more  power  in  our  free,  enlightened,  and  happy  Ame- 
rica, than  he  has  already.  Pray  let  us  not,  after  hav- 
ing broken  the  chains  of  political  thraldom,  come  in 
bondage  to  idolatry.  Let  us  not,  after  having  extri- 
cated our  persons  from  the  power  of  a  king,  subject 
our  minds  to  the  spiritual  domination  of  a  Pope. 


19.     Charles  X.  an  Idolater. 

Having  proved  his  holiness  the  Pope  an  idolater, 
I  proceed  now  to  prove  "  his  most  Christian  majesty" 
that  was,  the  ex-king  of  France,  an  idolater ;  which 
having  done,  I  shall  have  gone  a  good  way  towards 
proving  the  whole  Catholic  church  idolatrous,  since, 
as  you  know,  it  is  their  boast  that  they  all  think  alike, 
and  that  there  are  no  such  varieties  of  opinion  among 
them  as  among  us  unfortunate  Protestants ;  though, 
by  the  way,  it  is  not  so  strange  that  they  all  think 
alike,  when  one  thinks  for  all. 

I  proved  Gregory  an  idolater  out  of  his  own  mouth. 
I  shall  do  the  same  in  the  case  of  Charles.  On  the 
occasion  of  the  baptism  (with  oil,  spittle,  &c.  an  im- 
provement on  the  simple  water-system  of  the  Bible) 


70  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

of  his  young  grand-son,  the  Duke  of  Bordeaux, 
this  was  his  language :  "  Let  us  invoke  for  him  the 
protection  of  the  mother  of  God,  the  queen  of  the  an- 
gels ;  let  us  implore  her  to  watch  over  his  days,  and 
remove  far  from  his  cradle  the  misfortunes  with  which 
it  has  pleased  Providence  to  afflict  his  relatives,  and 
to  conduct  him  by  a  less  rugged  path  than  I  have  had, 
to  eternal  felicity."  He  was  anxious  that  the  little  boy 
should  have  a  protector,  one  to  watch  over  him,  and 
to  remove  his  misfortunes,  and  to  conduct  him  by  an 
easy  path  to  eternal  life.  For  this  purpose,  one  not 
educated  a  Catholic  would  have  supposed  that  he 
would  apply  to  the  omniscient  and  almighty  God.  I 
do  not  know  who  can  do  those  things  besides  God. 
But  no.  'His  majesty"  does  no  more  apply  to  God, 
than  did  his  holiness  in  a  similar  case.  I  suppose  it 
would  have  been  heresy  if  he  had.  They  would  have 
thought  him  going  over  to  Protestantism.  His  holi- 
ness and  his  majesty  both  make  application  to  the 
creature  rather  than  to  the  Creator.  Charles  does  not 
say,  "  Let  us  invoke  for  him  the  protection  of  God," 
but  of  a  woman,  a  woman  indeed  highly  favored  of 
the  Lord,  and  of  blessed  memory,  but  still  a  woman. 
He  calls  her,  according  to  the  custom  of  his  church, 
"  the  mother  of  God."  I  suppose  you  know  that  phrase 
is  not  in  the  Bible.  And  there  is  a  good  reason  for  it. 
the  idea  is  not  as  old  as  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  an 
old  book,  almost  as  old  as  our  religion.  Roman  Ca- 
tholicism is  comparatively  young.  I  will  not  remark 
on  the  phrase,  mother  of  God,  seeing  it  is  not  in  the 
Bible,  and  since  it  has  often  been  remarked  upon  by 
others.  But  there  is  another  thing  the  ex-king  says  of 
her,  on  which  I  will  spend  a  word  or  two.  He  calls 


THOUGHTS    OX    POPE .V.  i I 

her  "  the  queen  of  the  angels."  Now  we  read  in  the 
Bible,  of  Michael,  the  archangel,  or  prince  of  angels, 
but  we  do  not  read  of  the  angels  having  a  queen.  We 
read  also  of  a  king  in  heaven,  but  not  a  word  about  a 
queen.  I  don't  know  where  he  got  this  idea  of  a  queen 
of  angels.  He  certainly  did  not  get  it  out  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  yet  these  Scriptures,  I  had  always 
supposed,  contain  all  that  we  know  about  the  angels. 
I  wish  he  would  tell  us  from  his  retirement  where  he 
got  the  idea,  for  he  speaks  very  positive  about  the  an- 
gels having  a  queen.  It  is  true,  we  do  read  in  one 
place  in  the  Bible  of  a  queen  of  heaven,  but  the  wor- 
ship of  her  was  so  evidently  idolatry,  that  I  presume 
the  Catholics  will  not  quote  it  as  authorizing  the  title 
they  give  and  the  honor  they  pay  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 
The  account  is  found  in  Jeremiah,  44.  If  any  one  will 
read  the  chapter  he  will  see  what  that  prophet  thought 
of  those  worshipers  of  the  queen  of  heaven.  Now,  if 
the  worship  of  a  queen  of  heaven  by  the  Jews  was  de- 
nounced as  idolatry,  and  ruin  came  on  them  in  con- 
sequence of  it,  is  not  a  similar  worship  performed  by 
Catholics  as  idolatrous,  and  as  dangerous  ? 

But  no  matter  what  he  calls  her,  he  asks  her  to  do 
what  only  God  can  do.  He  treats  her  precisely  as  if 
she  were  divine.  Is  it  not  so — and  is  not  this  idolatry  ? 
He  ascribes  divine  perfections  to  her — omniscience, 
else  how  could  she  watch  over  the  child ;  and  omni- 
potence, else  how  could  she  ward  off  evil  from  him ; 
and  he  speaks  of  her  as  the  guide  of  souls  to  eternal 
life.  The  Psalmist  considered  it  was  the  prerogative 
of  God  to  do  this.  He  says,  "  Thou  shalt  guide  me 
with  thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  me  to  glory." 
But  the  ex-king  looks  to  Mary  to  conduct  the  young 


72  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY, 

duke  to  eternal  life.  What  the  Psalmist  expects  from 
God,  the  ex-king  expects  from  Mary.  Is  not  this  put- 
ting a  creature  in  the  place  of  God,  the  Creator? 
Every  one  must  see  that  it  is  shocking  idolatry,  and 
that  the  man  who  uses  such  language  is  as  truly  an 
idolater  as  any  devotee  of  Juggernaut. 

I  do  really  wonder  that  the  Catholics  continue  to 
call  their  system  Christianity.  It  is  by  a  great  misno- 
mer it  is  so  called.  It  is  not  the  proper  name  for  it  at 
all.  It  should  be  called  by  some  such  name  as  Mari- 
anism,  rather  than  Christianity.  In  Christianity  the 
principal  figure  is  Christ ;  but  he  is  not  the  principal 
figure  in  the  Catholic  religion.  Mary  is.  Therefore 
the  religion  should  be  called  after  her,  Marianism,  and 
not  after  Christ,  Christianity.  Catholics  are  not  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  but  of  Mary ;  she  is  their  confi- 
dence and  hope.  Pope  Gregory  says  she  "  is  our  great- 
est hope,  yea,  the  entire  ground  of  our  hope."  Now, 
I  think  that  the  religion  of  such  people  ought  to  be 
called  after  the  one  who  is  their  greatest  hope ;  and  I 
have  suggested  a  name  to  the  Catholics,  which  I  ad- 
vise them  to  adopt.  Let  their  religion  be  called  Mari- 
anism^ and  let  them  leave  to  us  the  name  Christianity, 
since  Christ  "  is  our  hope." 

Having  proved  his  Holiness,  and  his  most  Christian 
Majesty,  the  two  principal  characters  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  idolaters,  I  think  I  may  as  well  stop  here. 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY,  73 


J80.    Idolatry  near  Home* 

It  is  wonderful  what  a  propensity  there  is  in  fallen 
men  to  idolatry.  How  they  do  love  to  worship  the 
creature  rather  than  the  Creator  !  In  a  certain  church, 
which  need  not  he  named,  the  Messed  virgin,  though 
a  mere  woman,  receives  ten,  perhaps  a  hundred  times 
as  much  religious  honor  as  does  the  blessed  Savior, 
though  he  be  "  the  mighty  God,"  deserving  of  all  ho- 
mage, while  she  merits  barely  respectful  remembrance. 
One  that  has  much  intercourse  with  Catholics  would 
suppose  the  mother  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  world,  ra- 
ther than  the  Son.  They  make  her  to  be  the  principal 
advocate  of  sinners  in  heaven,  "  If  any  man  sin,  we 
have  an  advocate  with  the  Father."  Who?  St.  John 
says,  "Jesus  Christ  the  righteous" — the  Catholics 
say  it  is  Mary  !  So  they  differ — we  Protestants  side 
with  John. 

I  have  lately  met  with  an  idolatrous  temple,  that  is, 
a  church  or  chapel  avowedly  erected  in  honor  of  a 
creature,  and  dedicated  to  a  creature.  Is  not  that  a 
temple  of  idolatry  ?  Can  there  be  a  more  accurate  de- 
finition of  such  a  place  ?  Well,  I  have  seen  one — and 
I  have  not  been  a  voyage  to  India  neither.  Some 
think  there  is  no  idolatry  nearer  than  India ;  and  when 
they  hear  of  an  idol-temple  they  immediately  think  of 
Juggernaut.  But  it  is  a  mistake.  I  have  not  been  out 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  yet  I  have  seen 
a  temple  of  idolatry.  I  will  state  the  case,  and  let 
every  one  judge  for  himself.  If  I  am  under  an  erro- 
neous impression  I  shall  be  glad  to  be  corrected.  The 
7 


74  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY, 

case  is  this :  On  the  Catholic  chapel  in  Annapolis, 
Maryland,  is  this  inscription,  "  IN  HONOREM  DEI  PA- 
RJE  VIRGINIS."  It  is  Latin.  The  English  of  it  is,  "  In 
honor  of  the  Virgin,  the  mother  of  God."  If  I  have 
not  rightly  translated  it,  some  of  those  who  worship 
in  Latin  can  correct  me. 

Now,  what  does  this  mean  ?  It  seems  to  signify 
that  the  chapel  was  erected,  and  is  continued  in  ho- 
nor of,  that  is,  for  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
The  being  in  whose  honor  a  chapel  is  erected  is  wor- 
shiped in  it.  If  not,  how  is  it  in  honor  of  him?  The 
inscription  signifies  dedication  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Now,  the  being  to  whom  a  place  of  religious  worship 
is  dedicated  is  always  the  object  of  the  worship  there 
rendered.  This  is  universally  understood.  Hence  we 
dedicate  ourxhurches  to  the  Triune  God,  for  him  we 
worship  in  them.  They  are  erected  in  honor  of  him. 
No  one  mistakes  the  meaning  of  these  inscriptions. 
When  we  read  on  the  Unitarian  church  in  Baltimore 
this  inscription  in  Greek,  "  To  the  only  God,"  we  un- 
derstand that  the  church  is  consecrated  to  the  service 
of  the  only  God,  and  it  is  precisely  the  same  as  if  the 
inscription  had  been  in  the  style  of  that  at  Annapolis, 
in  honor  of  the  only  God.  So  when  Paul  found  at 
Athens  an  altar  with  this  inscription,  "  To  the  unknown 
God,"  he  inferred  immediately  that  worship  was  in- 
tended, for  he  says,  "  whom  therefore  ye  ignorantly 
worship  :"  suppose  the  inscription  had  been  "  in  ho- 
nor of  the  unknown  God,"  would  not  the  apostle's  in- 
ference have  been  the  same  ?  Nothing  is  more  clear 
than  that  the  inscription  on  which  I  am  remarking, 
implies  that  the  chapel  in  question  is  dedicated  to  the 
worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  and  she  being  a  creature, 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  75 

this  constitutes  it  a  temple  of  idolatry,  and  those  who 
worship  in  it  idolaters  ! 

Let  no  man  say  that  the  inscription  implies  no  more 
than  that  the  chapel  is  named  after  Mary.  Some  Pro- 
testants name  their  churches  after  saints,  but  the 
name  is  not  given  in  any  case  in  honor  of  the  saint. 
St.  Paul's  in  London  was  not  built  in  honor  of  St. 
Paul.  It  is  simply  so  denominated.  But  here  we  have 
a  chapel  in  honor  of  the  Virgin,  and  she  is  called  Mo- 
ther of  God,  apparently  to  justify  the  worship  which 
the  authors  of  the  chapel  intend  her.  If  this  were  the 
only  proof  that  Catholics  worship  the  Virgin  Mary, 
we  might  overlook  it ;  but  it  is  only  one  of  many.  No 
one  thing  is  more  susceptible  of  demonstration,  less 
capable  of  denial,  than  that  Roman  Catholics  render 
unto  this  creature  that  which  is  due  to  God  alone,  re- 
ligious worship.  See  for  proof,  their  own  Rhemish 
Testament  with  the  notes.  Therefore  they  are  idola- 
ters. I  am  sorry  to  say  it,  because  I  am  sorry  there  is 
any  occasion  for  saying  it.  But  the  time  has  come  to 
speak  out.  This  religion  is  threatening  America,  and 
it  should  be  known,  it  should  be  proclaimed  in  the  ear 
of  every  Christian,  and  every  patriot,  that  it  is  some- 
thing worse  than  mere  error.  And  something  more 
to  be  dreaded  far  than  tyranny,  which  also  it  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  and  must  be — it  is  IDOLATRY.  It  puts 
another,  and  a  creature,  in  the  place  of  God ;  or  if  it 
discards  not  him,  it  does  what  is  as  offensive  to  him, 
it  associates  other  and  inferior  objects  of  worship  with 
him — and  this  his  jealousy  will  not  suffer.  Whatever 
this  great  people  are  to  become,  I  do  hope  we  shall 
never  be  a  nation  of  idolaters — creature-worshipers. 
We  had  better  be,  what  God  forbid  we  ever  should  be, 


76  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

a  nation  of  slaves.  I  do  verily  believe  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  has  only  to  be  universally  adopted 
to  make  us  both. 


31.    Praying  to  Saints. 

This  is  one  of  the  numerous  points  in  which  Ca- 
tholics and  Protestants  differ  from  each  other.  They, 
the  Catholics,  pray  to  departed  saints.  This  they  ac- 
knowledge they  do,  nor  are  they  at  all  ashamed  of  the 
practice,  but  endeavor  to  justify  it.  If  any  one  doubts 
that  they  hold  to  the  invocation  of  saint s,  as  they  ex- 
press it,  let  him  consult  the  notes  to  their  own  Rhe- 
mish  Testament,  or  look  into  their  book  of  prayers, 
where  he  will  read  the  very  language  in  which  they 
make  their  supplication  to  the  saints. 

We  Protestants  do  not  pray  to  saints,  and  we  think 
we  have  pretty  good  reasons  for  not  doing  it.  We  will 
mention  some  of  them,  in  the  hope  that  they  will  ap- 
pear to  be  equally  good  reasons  why  Catholics  should 
not  pray  to  saints. 

1.  We  do  not  feel  the  need  of  saints  to  pray  to.  We 
have  a  great  and  good  God  to  go  unto,  whose  ear  is 
ever  open  to  our  cry,  and  we  think  that  is  enough ; 
we  do  not  want  any  other  object  of  prayer.  Whenever 
we  feel  the  need  of  any  thing,  we  judge  it  best  to 
apply  directly  to  our  heavenly  Father,  especially 
since  James,  one  of  the  saints,  testifies,  that  "  every 
good  gift,  and  every  perfect  gift,  is  from  above,  and 
cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights,"  Others  may, 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  77 

in  their  necessity,  if  they  please,  apply  to  the  saints, 
but  we  choose  to  ask  of  the  Great  Giver  of  all  good. 
In  doing  so,  we  think  we  are  much  more  likely  to  re- 
ceive than  if  we  invoke  the  saints. 

It  is  true,  being  sinners,  we  need  an  advocate  with 
the  Father,  but  we  do  not  need  more  than  one,  and 
him  we  have,  as  John,  another  saint,  testifies,  in  Jesus 
Christ :  u  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with 
the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous."  John  speaks 
of  only  one  advocate,  and  Paul  asserts  that  as  there 
is  but  one  God,  so  there  is  but  one  mediator  between 
God  and  men.  Yet  the  Catholics  will  have  it,  that 
there  are  advocates  many  and  mediators  many.  The 
notes  of  the  Rhemish  translators  on  1  Tim.  2 :  5,  and 
1  John,  2  :  1,  assert  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  me- 
diators and  advocates.  The  object  of  those  notes  is  to 
show,  that  if  any  man  sin,  he  has  many  advocates  with 
the  Father,  and  that  there  are  more  mediators  than 
one  between  God  and  men ;  the  very  reverse  of  what 
those  texts  assert !  I  am  aware  that  the  Catholics  say 
that  saints  are  mediators  only  in  a  subordinate  sense ; 
but  I  say  they  are  mediators  in  no  sense.  Does  the 
Bible  speak  of  them  as  mediators  in  any  sense  ?  Those 
words,  "  mediator  "  and  "  advocate,"  are  in  the  Bible 
sacredly  appropriated  to  Christ.  There  is  but  one,  and 
it  is  he.  We  come  to  the  Father  by  him.  To  him  we 
come  immediately.  Here  we  need  no  daysman. 

2.  We  Protestants  have  always  regarded  prayer 
as  a  part  of  worship,  as  much  as  praise  and  confession 
of  sin.  Now,  our  Savior  says,  "  Thou  shalt  worship 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  We 
dare  not,  therefore,  pray  to  any  other  than  God.  We 
would  not  like  to  be  guilty  of  the  idolatry  of  worship- 
ing a  creature.  7* 


78  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

3.  If  we  were  disposed  to  pray  to  the  saints,  yet  we 
should  not  exactly  know  how  to  do  it.  Were  we  to 
pray  to  them  generally,  without  singling  any  out  by 
name,  it  would  be  a  kind  of  praying  at  random  ;  and 
we  strongly  suspect  that  our  requests  would  not  be  at- 
tended to,  for  it  may  be  among  saints  in  heaven,  as  it 
is  among  their  less  perfect  brethren  on  earth,  that  what 
is  made  every  body's  business  comes  to  be  regarded 
as  nobody's.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  apply  to  spe- 
cific saints,  and  invoke  them  by  name,  this  supposes 
that  we  know  just  who  the  saints  are.  It  implies  either 
that  we  could  see  into  their  hearts  while  they  lived, 
or  that  we  can  see  into  heaven  now— both  which  far 
outreach  our  power.  We  might  make  some  sad  mis- 
take in  praying  to  deceased  men  who  have  passed  for 
saints.  It  is  easy  enough  to  ascertain  who  the  church 
regards  as  saints,  but  the  canonized  may  not  exactly 
correspond  to  the  sanctified.  But,  supposing  this  diffi- 
culty removed,  and  that  we  know  certain  individuals, 
who,  having  once  lived  on  earth,  are  now  in  heaven  : 
the  next  thing  is,  to  make  them  hear  us,  for  there  is 
manifestly  no  use  in  preferring  requests  to  those  who 
cannot  hear  them.  How  is  this  to  be  done  ?  The  saints 
are  in  heaven — the  suppliant  sinner  is  on  earth,  and 
the  distance  between  them  is  great.  Saints  in  heaven 
are  not  within  call  of  sinners  on  earth.  Where  is  the 
proof  of  it?  If  I  say,  "  Peter,  pray  for  me,"  how  is 
he  to  know  I  say  it  ?  Peter  is  not  omnipresent.  Do 
they  say  that  God  communicates  to  him  the  fact ;  but 
where  is  the  proof  of  that  ?  Besides,  what  does  it 
amount  to?  God,  according  to  this  theory,  informs 
Peter  that  a  certain  sinner  on  earth  wants  him,  Peter, 
to  ask  him,  the  Lord,  to  grant  him  something.  This 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  79 

is  a  roundabout  method. of  getting  at  the  thing.  The 
man  had  better,  a  great  deal,  not  trouble  Peter,  but  say 
at  once,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner." 

But  the  Catholics  ask  with  an  air  of  triumph,  if  we 
do  not  request  living  saints  to  pray  for  us.  We  do, 
for  we  have  inspired  authority  for  that.  But  that  is 
not  praying  to  them.  There  is  a  wide  difference  be- 
tween praying  to  a  saint  in  heaven,  and  asking  a  fel- 
low-traveler to  Zion  on  earth  to  pray  TO  GOD  for  us. 
Every  one  must  see  that.  When  a  Christian  asks  his 
minister  or  his  Christian  friend  to  beseech  God  for 
him,  he  does  not  consider  that  he  is  praying  to  him  or 
invoking  him.  Besides,  we  never  ask  one  to  pray  for 
us,  unless  we  know  he  is  within  hearing.  We  should 
think  it  very  silly  to  do  so.  We  must  have  proof  of 
his  presence  before  we  think  of  making  any  request 
of  him.  Yet  the  Catholics  are  continually  making 
requests  of  creatures,  of  whose  presence  with  them 
they  have  not  a  particle  of  proof,  and  who,  being  crea- 
tures, it  is  certain  cannot  be  present  with  all  that  call 
upon  them.  How  many  individuals  are  every  day,  at 
the  same  hour,  calling  on  the  blessed  Virgin  for  as- 
sistance !  It  is  all  folly,  unless  she  be  omnipresent — a 
goddess,  which  the  Bible  certainly  does  not  represent 
her  as  being.  She  occupies  but  one  small  spot  in  the 
universe  of  God,  and  it  is  probably  a  great  way  off. 
She  cannot  hear,  even  if  she  could  help.  Do  you  sup- 
pose that  her  calm  repose  in  heaven  is  suffered  to  be 
disturbed  by  the  ten  thousand  confused  voices  that 
cry  to  her  without  ceasing  from  earth  ?  Never. 

In  looking  over  the  Bible,  the  book  which  contains 
the  religion  of  Protestants,  and  which,  being  older 
than  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  proves  the  seni- 


80  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

ority  of  Protestantism  over  Popery,  I  find  no  account 
of  praying  to  saints.  I  do  not  read  of  Joshua  praying 
to  Moses ;  or  of  Elisha  invoking  Elijah.  No,  there  is 
not  a  word  of  what  constitutes  so  much  of  the  devo- 
tion of  the  Catholic  in  either  Testament.  We  do  not 
find  any  thing  in  the  Acts  or  Epistles  about  praying 
to  the  beloved  Virgin,  whom  they  call  our  Lady,  in 
allusion  to  the  phrase  our  Lord.  Those  writers  say 
nothing  about  the  mother.  It  is  all  about  the  Son. 
What  heretics  Luke  and  the  rest  of  them  were  !  How 
worthy  of  being  excommunicated  !  Catholic  books  are 
full  of  the  blessed  Virgin.  The  Bible  is  all  about 
Christ.  There  is  the  difference. 

But  I  forgot.  The  New  Testament  does  record  one 
instance  of  prayer  to  a  departed  saint.  The  record  is 
in  Luke,  16.  The  saint  prayed  to  was  Abraham.  The 
supplicant  was  a  rich  man  in  hell,  and  he  made  two 
requests.  Here  is  the  Catholic's  authority  for  this 
doctrine  of  praying  to  deceased  saints,  so  far  as  he 
gets  it  out  of  the  Bible.  Let  him  make  the  most  of  it. 
When,  however,  he  takes  into  consideration  that  it 
was  offered  from  hell,  and  by  a  man  who  lived  and 
died  in  ignorance  and  neglect  of  religion,  and  that  it 
proved  totally  unavailing,  I  suspect  he  will  make  no 
more  out  of  it. 


Specimens  of  Catholic  Idolatry. 

I  take  them  from  the  Catholic  book  which  I  have 
been  reviewing,  "  The  Christian's  Guide  to  Heaven." 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  81 

I  did  not  know,  before  I  read  this  book,  that  idolatry 
was  the  road  to  heaven.  It  did  not  use  to  be  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation.  These  specimens  of  Catho- 
lic idolatry  I  think  the  reader  will  pronounce,  with  me, 
quite  up  to  the  average  of  Pagan  idolatry. 

Here  is  one.  "  We  fly  to  thy  patronage,  O  holy 
mother  of  God  ;  despise  not  our  petitions  in  our  neces- 
sities, but  deliver  us  from  all  dangers."  That  is  the 
manner  in  which  devout  Catholics  in  the  United 
States  are  directed  to  pray.  They  fly  to  Mary,  but 
"  God  is  our  refuge."  There  is  the  difference.  They 
look  to  her  to  deliver  them  from  all  dangers.  I  don't 
know  how  she  can  deliver  them  from  all  dangers.  I 
think  they  had  better  ascertain  the  powers  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  before  they  place  such  unbounded  reliance 
on  her.  I  should  be  a  very  fearful  creature,  had  I  none 
to  fly  to  from  danger  but  her.  "  What  time  I  am  afraid, 
I  will  trust  in  thee,"  (the  Lord.)  So  says  the  Psalm- 
ist, and  it  is  my  purpose  too. 

The  next  specimen  is  entitled,  "  The  Salve  Regi- 
na,"  and  thus  it  runs :  "  Hail !  holy  queen,  mother  of 
mercy,  our  life,  our  sweetness,  and  our  hope.  To  thee 
we  cry,  poor  banished  sons  of  Eve;  to  thee  we  send 
up  our  sighs,  mourning  and  weeping  in  this  valley  of 
tears.  Turn,  then,  most  gracious  advocate,  thy  eyes 
of  mercy  towards  us,  and  after  this  our  exile  is  ended, 
show  unto  us  the  blessed  fruit  of  thy  womb,  Jesus,  O 
clement,  O  pious,  O  sweet  Virgin  Mary."  Now,  is  it 
not  a  farce  to  call  this  Christianity  ?  It  is  a  great  deal 
more  like  atheism.  Here  is  an  authorized  Catholic 
prayer,  in  which  there  is  no  recognition  of  God 
whatever ! 

Then  follows  a  call  to  devout  contemplation,  and 


82  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

one  would  suppose  that  the  object  of  it  would  be 
God,  or  the  Savior.  But  no,  it  is  the  Virgin.  "Let 
us,  with  exultation,  contemplate  the  blessed  Virgin 
Mary  sitting  in  glory  at  the  right  hand  of  her  be- 
loved Son.  She  is  crowned  by  the  heavenly  Father 
queen  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  appointed  by  Jesus 
Christ  the  dispenser  of  his  graces."  It  is  singular 
that  the  Catholics,  when  they  look  up  to  heaven,  see 
no  object  so  conspicuous  as  the  blessed  Virgin.  Now, 
she  was  not  the  most  prominent  figure  in  those  visions 
of  heaven  of  which  we  have  account  in  the  Bible.  Ste- 
phen saw  "  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  man 
standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God,"  but  he  saw  no- 
thing of  the  Virgin  Mary  sitting  at  her  Son's  right 
hand.  Nor  does  John,  in  the  history  he  gives  in  the 
book  of  Revelation  of  his  visions  of  heaven,  make  any 
mention  of  seeing  her.  But  it  seems  she  is  not  only 
visible  to  the  contemplative  Catholic,  but  almost  alone 
conspicuous. 

They  speak  of  her  moreover  as  crowned  universal 
queen,  and  appointed  dispenser  of  the  graces  of  Christ. 
But  where  did  they  get  that  information  ?  It  is  too 
much  to  expect  us  to  take  their  word  for  it,  since  it  is 
acknowledged  that  we  have  not  the  word  of  God  for  it. 
I  always  supposed  Christ  to  be,  through  his  Spirit,  the 
dispenser  of  his  own  graces.  I  always  understood  it 
to  be  him  who  "received  gifts  for  men."  But  it  seems, 
according  to  the  Catholics,  that  quite  a  different  per- 
son received  and  dispenses  them.  How  much  novelty 
there  is  in  the  Catholic  religion  !  It  is  almost  all  of  it 
comparatively  new  doctrine.  Ours,  the  Protestant,  is 
the  old  religion,  after  all  that  is  said  to  the  contrary. 

But  the  Catholic  is  so  positive  in  regard  to  the  coro- 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  83 

nation  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  that  we  find  him  using 
the  following  thanksgiving,  "  O  Jesus,  in  union  with 
angels  and  saints,  I  bless  thee  for  the  glory  with 
which  thou  hast  environed  thy  holy  mother,  and  I 
give  thee  thanks  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  for 
having  given  her  to  me,  for  my  queen,  my  protec- 
tress and  my  mother."  Here  ends  the  thanksgiving 
to  Jesus.  They  soon  become  weary  of  addressing 
him,  and  fondly  return  to  the  mother.  "  O  queen  of 
angels  and  men,  grant  thy  powerful  intercession  to 
those  who  are  united  to  honor  thee  in  the  confrater- 
nity of  the  holy  rosary,"  (I  don't  know  what  that 
means ;  it  is  a  mystery  that  I  must  leave  unexplain- 
ed,) "and  to  all  thy  other  servants."  Then  follows 
something  to  which  I  solicit  particular  attention.  I 
suspect  the  author  and  approvers  of  the  book  would 
be  glad  to  obliterate  the  sentence  I  am  going  to  quote, 
if  they  could.  But  it  is  too  late.  The  words  are 
these  :  "  I  consecrate  myself  entirely  to  thy  service." 
Here  the  person  wishing  to  be  guided  to  heaven  is 
directed,  under  the  authority  of  the  archbishop,  to  con- 
secrate himself  entirely  to  the  service  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  who  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  be  a 
creature.  Mark,  it  is  entirely.  This  excludes  God 
altogether  from  any  share  in  the  person's  services. 
He  is  to  be  entirely  consecrated  to  the  service  of  the 
Virgin.  Will  any  one,  who  has  any  regard  for  his 
character  as  an  intelligent  being,  say  that  this  is  not 
idolatry  ?  There  cannot  be  a  plainer  case  of  idolatry 
made  out  in  any  part  of  the  world,  or  from  any  portion 
of  history.  St.  Paul  beseeches  us  to  present  our  bo- 
dies a  living  sacrifice  to  God,  which,  he  says,  is  our 
reasonable  service  ;  but  this  Catholic  guide  to  heaven 


84  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

directs  us  to  consecrate  ourselves  entirely  to  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Accordingly,  the  docile  Catholic  does  consecrate 
himself  to  Mary,  as  in  the  following  act  of  devotion 
to  her,  which  you  may  read  in  the  same  little  book: 
"  O  blessed  Virgin,  I  come  to  offer  thee  my  most 
humble  homage,  and  to  implore  the  aid  of  thy  pray- 
ers and  protection.  Thou  art  all-powerful  with  the 
Almighty.  Thou  knowest  that  from  my  tender  years 
I  looked  up  to  thee  as  my  mother,  my  advocate,  and 
patroness.  Thou  wert  pleased  to  consider  me  from 
that  time  as  one  of  thy  children.  I  will  henceforth 
serve,  honor  and  love  thee.  Accept  my  protestation 
of  fidelity ;  look  favorably  on  the  confidence  I  have  in 
thee ;  obtain  for  me,  of  thy  dear  Son,  a  lively  faith ;  a 
firm  hope ;  a  tender,  generous,  and  constant  love,  that 
I  may  experience  the  power  of  thy  protection  at  my 
death."  Here  you  perceive  the  Catholic  says  he  will 
do  what  "  the  guide "  directs  him  to  do.  He  will 
serve  her;  and  so  doing,  he  hopes  to  experience  the 
power  of  her  protection  at  his  death.  Poor  soul !  I 
pity  him,  if  he  has  no  better  company  in  death  than 
that.  That  was  not  the  reason  David  said,  "Though 
I  walk  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death,  I 
will  fear  no  evil."  His  reason  was,  "  for  Thou  (the 
Lord,  his  shepherd)  art  with  me;  thy  rod  and  thy 
staff,  they  comfort  me."  How  can  Mary  be  with 
every  dying  Catholic  who  trusts  in  her?  I  should  like 
to  know.  Do  they  go  so  far  as  to  say  she  is  omnipre- 
sent ?  Have  they  formally  deified  her,  as  in  fact  they 
have? 

The  devotee  in  this  prayer  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage to  the  virgin :  "  Thou  art  all-powerful  with  the 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  85 

Almighty."  Shall  I  call  this  an  errors?  a  falsehood? 
It  is  certain  that  there  is  no  truth  in  it.  She,  a  poor 
sinful  creature,  like  the  rest  of  us,  saved  by  grace,  all- 
powerful  with  the  Almighty  in  intercession !  Christ 
is  that ;  but  no  other  being  is  ;  and  to  say  that  any 
other  is,  is  not  only  falsehood,  but  blasphemy. 

I  have  other  specimens  of  Catholic  idolatry,  which 
I  mean  to  give  ;  but  those  I  have  exhibited  are  suffi- 
cient to  convict  that  church  of  idolatry  before  any 
court  that  ever  sat,  or  any  jury  that  was  ever  impan- 
neled.  /  have  FROVED  the  Catholic  church  and  reli- 
gion to  be  idolatrous.  I  have  not  merely  asserted  it ; 
it  has  been  demonstrated,  and  the  proof  has  been 
taken  from  her  own  authorized  publication.  To  have 
said  she  was  idolatrous,  would  have  been  uncharita- 
ble. To  have  proved  it,  is  not.  A  man  is  responsi- 
ble for  the  drift  of  his  assertions,  but  not  for  the  scope 
of  his  arguments. 

Idolatrous !  Yes,  she  who  pretends  to  be  the  only 
church,  is  convicted,  out  of  her  own  mouth,  of  idola- 
try. She  has  this  millstone  about  her  neck.  I  won- 
der she  has  swum  with  it  so  long.  It  must  sink  her 
presently.  I  think  I  see  her  going  down  already,  al- 
though I  know  many  suppose  she  is  rising  in  the 
world. 


23.    More   Specimens  of  Catholic  Idolatry. 

Why,  reader,  did  you  know  that  the  Catholics  not 
only  pray  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  sing  to  her  ?   I  was 


86  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

not  aware  of  it  until  I  got  hold  of  the  book  I  have 
been  reviewing.  But  it  is  a  fact  that  they  do.  At  the 
end  of  the  book  I  find  the  two  following  hymns  ad- 
dressed to  her.  They  are  both  in  common  metre.  Here 
is  the  first.  You  will  see  that,  in  point  of  idolatry,  they 
are  fully  up  to  the  prayers  to  her. 

M  O  holy  mother  of  our  God, 

"  To  thee  for  help  we  fly; 
"  Despise  not  this  our  humble  prayer, 

"  But  all  our  wants  supply. 

"  O  glorious  virgin,  ever  blest, 

"  Defend  us  from  our  foes; 
"  From  threatening  dangers  set  us  free, 

"And  terminate  our  woes." 

Here  is  the  idolatry  of  looking  to  a  creature  for  the 
supply  of  all  wants,  and  of  flying  to  a  creature  for 
help  and  for  defence.  There  is  a  curse  pronounced  in 
Jeremiah,  17  :  5,  on  the  man  "  that  trusteth  in  man, 
and  maketh  flesh  his  arm."  If  the  person  who  de- 
voutly uses  this  hymn  does  not  make  "flesh  his  arm," 
I  should  like  to  know  who  does. 

The  other  hymn  runs  thus : 


"Hail,  Mary,  queen  and  virgin  pure, 
"  With  every  grace  replete ; 

"  Hail,  kind  protectress  of  the  poor, 
"Pity  our  needy  state. 

"  O  thou  who  fill'st  the  highest  place, 
"  Next  heaven's  imperial  throne ; 

"  Obtain  for  us  each  saving  grace, 
'•'  And  make  our  wants  thy  own. 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  87 

*  How  oft,  when  trouble  filled  my  breast, 

w  Or  sin  my  conscience  pained, 
"  Through  thee  I  sought  for  peace  and  rest, 

"  Through  thee  I  peace  obtained. 

"  Then  hence,  in  all  my  pains  and  cares, 

"  I'll  seek  for  help  in  thee ; 
"  E'er  trusting,  through  thy  powerful  prayers, 

'*  To  gain  eternity." 

But  it  seems  the  blessed  Virgin  is  not  the  only  crea- 
ture they  sing  to.  I  find  in  the  same  book  a  hymn  to 
St.  Joseph,  of  which  the  first  verse  is, 

"Holy  Patron,  thee  saluting, 

"  Here  we  meet  with  hearts  sincere ; 

"  Blest  St.  Joseph,  all  uniting, 
"  Call  on  thee  to  hear  our  prayer." 

Perhaps  the  reader  is  aware  that  the  Catholics  are 
not  satisfied  with  praying  merely  to  animated  beings, 
they  sometimes  supplicate  things  which  have  no  life. 
Indeed  they  seem  disposed  to  worship  almost  every 
thing,  except  it  be  Him  whom  alone  they  should  wor- 
ship. To  give  but  one  example,  I  find  in  "  the  Litany 
of  the  blessed  Sacrament,"  as  they  call  it,  among  ma- 
ny other  similar  supplications,  this  one,  "  O  wheat  of 
the  elect,  have  mercy  on  us."  What  a  prayer  this,  to 
be  sanctioned  by  an  archbishop,  and  sent  forth  from 
one  of  the  most  enlightened  cities  of  America,  and 
that  in  the  nineteenth  century  too !  It  is  really  too  bad. 
We  talk  of  the  progress  of  things.  But  here  is  retro- 
cession with  a  witness.  In  the  first  century  the  rule 
was,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  publican,  to  pray, 
"  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  j"  but  now  in  the 


88  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

nineteenth,  the  sinner  is  directed  to  say,  "  0  wheat 
of  the  elect,  have  mercy  on  us  !" 

I  think  we  have  found,  with  reference  to  the  Catho- 
lic religion,  what  Archimedes  could  not  find  when  he 
wanted  to  move  the  world.  He  said  he  could  move  it, 
provided  he  could  have  a  place  to  stand  on,  from  which 
he  could  with  his  lever  act  upon  the  world.  But  as  no 
such  place  could  be  found  for  him,  the  world  was  not 
moved.  I  think,  however,  that  I  have  discovered  a 
spot  from  which  we  can  not  only  move,  but  utterly 
subvert  the  Roman  Catholic  religion.  We  pass  over 
her  absurdity  and  her  intolerance,  and  plant  ourselves 
on  her  idolatry.  Here  we  will  stand,  and  from  this 
place  we  will  carry  on  our  operations  against  her.  If 
the  Roman  Catholic  church  is  idolatrous,  can  she 
stand?  Must  she  not  fall?  What !  a  church  that  is 
plainly  idolatrous  maintain  its  ground  as  the  church 
of  Christ !  It  is  impossible.  It  is  but  for  the  eyes  of 
mankind  to  be  opened  to  see  her  idolatry,  and  her 
reign  is  over.  The  common  sense  of  the  world  cannot 
long  brook  prayers  and  hymns  to  creatures,  and  sup- 
plications for  mercy  to  that  of  which  bread  is  made. 
I  would  not  have  it  persecuted ;  I  would  not  have  one 
of  its  adherents  harmed  in  the  slightest  degree ;  but 
there  are  some  things  which  the  enlightened  intellect 
of  man  cannot  tolerate  ;  and  this  is  the  chief  of  those 
things  which  are  intolerable  to  reason.  It  must  go  off 
the  stage,  even  though  infidelity  should  come  on  and 
occupy  it.  The  religion  that  is  not  of  the  Bible,  and 
that  scoffs  at  reason,  must  come  to  an  end.  I  have  no 
fears  of  its  rising  to  any  higher  ascendancy  than  that 
it  now  occupies.  My  hope  is  in  God  5  but  if  it  were 
not,  it  would  be  in  man. 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  89 


24.    Image    Worship. 

If  there  be  any  truth  in  phrenology,  I  judge  that 
Catholics  must  have  the  organ  of  veneration  very 
largely  developed.  There  are  no  people,  unless  it  be 
some  Pagans,  who  are  so  inclined  to  worship.  They 
worship  almost  every  thing  that  comes  in  their  way, 
with  scarcely  any  discrimination.  The  value  of  wor- 
ship with  them  seems  to  depend  on  the  variety  of  ob- 
jects worshiped.  What  a  pity  it  is  they  cannot  con- 
fine their  worship  within  narrower  bounds  !  What  a 
pity  they  are  not  satisfied  with  one  object  of  religious 
veneration — the  great  and  glorious  God  !  But  no.  Be- 
sides him,  they  must  have  a  host  of  creatures,  angels, 
saints,  and  what  not,  as  objects  of  adoration.  Nor  are 
they  satisfied  with  these  beings  themselves.  They 
must  have  visible  representations  of  them  to  bow 
down  unto,  and  worship.  They  want  something  to 
worship  which  they  can  see.  In  the  profession  of 
faith  which  I  find  in  the  little  book  published  in  Bal- 
timore under  the  sanction  of  the  archbishop,  from 
which  I  have  quoted  so  freely  already,  and  to  which 
I  love  to  appeal,  seeing  it  is  published  so  near  home, 
and  there  can  be  no  dispute  about  its  authority,  I  find 
this  paragraph  among  others  :  "  I  most  firmly  assert, 
that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  mother  of  God,  ever 
Virgin,  and  also  of  the  saints,  ought  to  be  had  and  re- 
tained, and  that  due  honor  and  veneration  is  to  be 
given  them."  This  doctrine  sounds  a  little  different 
from  that  promulged  from  Sinai,  and  written  with  the 
finger  of  God  on  the  tables  of  stone.  They  look  to  be 
at  variance,  to  say  the  least ;  and  I  think  I  shall  be 
8* 


90  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

able  to  show  presently  that  they  have  that  aspect  to 
Catholics  as  well  as  Protestants.  The  voice  that 
shook  the  earth,  after  saying,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  gods  before  me,"  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not  make 
unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any 
thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,"  &c.  Now  Christ,  the 
virgin,  and  the  saints  are  in  heaven  above,  unless  any 
choose  to  surmise  that  some  of  those  reckoned  saints 
are  elsewhere.  Consequently  no  likeness  of  them 
may  be  made.  The  law  proceeds  :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
bow  down  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them."  But  do 
not  Catholics  bow  down  or  kneel  before  likenesses  of 
the  saints  and  others?  I  ask  the  question.  I  know 
they  used  to  do  so,  and  I  suppose  I  may  infer  that 
they  do  so  now,  since  it  is  their  grand  boast  that  their 
religion  is  every  where  and  always  the  same.  The 
doctrine  delivered  from  Sinai  is  the  old  notion  on  the 
subject,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  against  every  kind 
and  degree  of  image  worship.  But,  says  the  modern 
"  guide  to  heaven,"  what  the  authoritative  Council  of 
Trent  had  said  many  years  before,  "the  images  of 
Christ,  of  the  mother  of  God,  and  also  of  the  saints, 
ought  to  be  had  and  retained,  and  due  honor  and  ve- 
neration given  them."  Here  are  Baltimore  and 
Trent  against  Sinai;  or,  in  other  words,  the  arch- 
bishop and  council  on  one  side,  and  he  who  came 
down  on  the  mountain  which  burned  with  fire  on  the 
other.  My  hearers  must  range  themselves  on  either 
side,  as  they  see  fit. 

But  cannot  the  two  things  be  reconciled  somehow  ? 
Can  they  not  be  so  explained  as  to  remove  all  ap- 
pearance of  inconsistency  ?  Perhaps  they  can,  if  one 
of  them  be  explained  away,  that  is,  be  made  so  clear 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  91 

that  you  can't  see  it  any  longer.  This  is  a  new  way 
some  have  of  reconciling  things ;  but  I,  as  an  indivi- 
dual, do  not  think  much  of  it.  I  like  the  old  way  of 
laying  things  alongside  of  each  other,  and  then  shed- 
ding as  much  light  as  possible  on  both.  If  this  is 
done  with  the  two  things  in  question,  I  fear  there  is 
no  hope  of  reconciling  them.  To  this  conclusion  our 
Catholic  brethren  themselves  seem  to  have  come ;  and 
seeing  that  the  two  things  could  not  be  so  explained 
as  to  appear  in  harmony,  they  have  most  effectually 
explained  one  of  them  away.  They  have  suppressed 
it.  The  second  commandment  has  been  thrown  out 
of  the  Decalogue,  as  I  have  shown  on  a  former  occa- 
sion. This  is  a  part  of  the  Catholics'  "  short  and  easy 
method  with  Protestants."  It  beats  Leslie's  with  the 
Deists  all  to  nothing.  Whether  it  be  as  honest  and 
correct  a  method,  as  it  is  short  and  easy,  I  refer  to  the 
judgment  of  my  readers.  One  thing  is  very  certain  ; 
the  Catholics  must  think  that  the  old  second  com- 
mandment is,  or  at  least  looks  very  much  against 
them,  otherwise  they  would  not  have  meddled  with 
it.  Can  any  other  reason  be  given  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  second  commandment,  but  that  it  seems  to 
forbid  that  use  which  Catholics  make  of  images  in 
their  churches?  If  any  body  can  imagine  another 
reason,  I  will  thank  him  to  state  it.  Now,  where 
there  can  be  but  one  motive  impelling  to  an  act,  I 
suppose  it  is  not  uncharitable  to  refer  the  act  to  that 
motive. 

I  believe  the  reader  is  aware  that,  even  in  the  little 
modern  Baltimore  book,  "  the  guide  to  heaven,"  the 
second  commandment  is  suppressed.  I  think  I  have 
stated  that  fact  in  a  former  article.  It  is  so.  And 


92  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

why  should  it  not  be  ?  Why  should  not  the  invaria- 
ble religion  be  the  same  here  that  it  is  in  Ireland  or 
Italy  ?  Why  should  American  Catholics  be  bound  to 
keep  one  more  commandment  than  European  Catho- 
lics? Why  should  they  of  the  old  countries  have 
greater  liberty  of  action  than  we  of  the  new  world  ? 
The  circumstances  under  which  the  second  com- 
mandment is  omitted  in  "the  guide  to,"  &c.  are 
these.  An  examination,  preparatory  to  confession,  is 
recommended  to  the  devout  Catholic,  on  the  ten  com- 
mandments, that  he  may  see,  before  he  goes  to  the 
priest  to  get  forgiveness,  wherein  he  has  transgressed 
any  of  them.  Now,  he  is  not  directed  to  examine  him- 
self on  the  second,  but  twice  over  on  the  tenth,  so  as 
to  make  out  the  full  number.  Now  I  acknowledge  it 
would  have  been  awkward  to  have  set  the  person  to 
examining  himself  in  reference  to  the  second  com- 
mandment. It  might  have  led  to  a  conviction  of  sins 
not  recognized  by  his  confessor.  If  he  had  asked 
himself,  "  is  there  any  graven  image,  or  likeness  of 
any  thing  in  heaven  above,  or  in  the  earth  beneath, 
to  which  I  bow  down  ?"  himself  would  have  been  apt 
to  answer,  "  Why  yes,  there  is  that  image  of  Christ  I 
kneel  before — and  there  is  that  likeness  of  the  blessed 
Virgin  I  bow  down  to  and  adore — I  am  afraid  I  have 
broken  the  second  commandment."  If  then  he  had 
gone  to  the  priest  with  his  scruples,  you  see  it  would 
have  made  work  and  trouble.  It  is  true,  the  priest 
could  have  said  to  him,  "  O,  my  child,  you  don't 
mean  any  thing  by  it.  You  only  use  the  image  as  a 
help  to  devotion.  Your  worship  does  not  terminate 
on  it.  Your  worship  of  it  is  only  relative.  Besides, 
you  don't  adore  the  image — you  only  venerate  it — 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  93 

and  you  only  give  "  due  honor  and  veneration "  to 
images — nothing  more  than  that.  You  should  con- 
sider, my  child,  the  distinction  between  adoration  and 
veneration — and  also  between  latria  and  dulia"  But 
this  might  not  have  satisfied  the  person's  conscience. 
It  might  have  been  all  Greek  to  him.  Wherefore  it 
was  judged  most  prudent  not  to  recommend  any  ex- 
amination on  the  commandment  about  images.  Per- 
haps it  was  the  more  prudent  course.  The  policy  of 
the  measure  I  do  not  dispute. 

But,  say  the  Catholics,  have  not  Protestants  their 
pictures  and  statues?  Certainly  we  have.  We  do 
not  make  war  against  the  fine  arts.  We  can  approve 
of  painting  and  statuary  without  practicing  idolatry. 
Yes,  we  have  representations  of  deceased  Christians, 
but  we  do  not  kneel  before  them,  nor  do  we  on  that 
account  drop  the  second  commandment,  as  some  do. 
The  Catholics  make  a  great  many  explanations  and 
distinctions  on  this  subject  of  image  worship,  some 
of  which  I  have  adverted  to  above,  in  what  I  have 
supposed  the  priest  to  say.  But  they  are  substantially 
the  same  that  the  ancient  Israelite  might  have  made, 
and  the  modern  Pagan  makes  in  justification  of  him- 
self. Idolaters,  when  called  upon  to  explain  them- 
selves, have  always  been  in  the  habit  of  saying  that 
it  was  only  a  relative  worship  they  paid  to  the  visible 
object,  and  that  the  adoration  was  meant  to  pass 
through  and  terminate  on  an  invisible  object  beyond. 
This  explanation  is  not  original  with  the  modern 
Christian  idolater.  It  is  as  old  as  Jewish  and  Pagan 
idolatry.  The  worshipers  of  the  golden  calf  wor- 
shiped something  beyond  the  calf.  The  calf  was 
only  a  help  to  devotion,  and  they  only  paid  "  due 


94  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

honor  and  veneration  "  to  it.  Nevertheless  they  "  sin- 
ned a  great  sin,"  and  "  the  Lord  plagued  the  people  " 
on  account  of  it.  "  There  fell  of  the  people  that  day 
about  3,000."  I  suppose  it  would  have  been  just  the 
same  had  they  made  ever  so  many  explanations.  But 
their  explanations  were  not  waited  for.  What  signi- 
fies all  these  explanations  and  distinctions  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  Catholic  laity  ?  They  do  not  even  under- 
stand them  ;  and  it  seems  that  if  they  both  understood 
and  regarded  them,  it  would  not  help  the  matter.  It 
is  this  very  explained  and  qualified  worship  which  the 
commandment  forbids. 

I  have  nothing  more  to  say  about  images,  but  I  wish 
the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore  would  allow  the  second 
commandment  to  appear  in  the  next  edition  of  "  the 
Guide  to  Heaven."  I  wish  he  would  let  the  publish- 
er's stereotype  plates  be  altered  so  as  to  conform  to  the 
tables  of  stone.  I  am  afraid  the  people  will  not  get 
to  heaven  if  they  have  not  respect  to  all  God's  com- 
mandments. The  Psalmist  seems  to  have  thought 
that  necessary.  Ps.  119:  6.  It  would  gratify  me  much, 
if  the  archbishop  would  permit  the  Lord  to  say  to  his 
people  all  he  has  to  say. 


35.    Relics. 


My  last  was  on  the  subject  of  images.  Here  are 
some  more  things  to  which  the  Catholics,  if  they  do 
not  exactly  worship  them,  pay  a  respect  and  venera- 
tion which  is  very  apt  to  run  into  worship,  They  are 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  95 

relics,  so  called.  I  have  just  come  from  the  diction- 
ary where  I  went  to  find  the  word.  I  consulted  Cru- 
den's  Concordance  first,  but  I  found  no  such  word 
there.  That  contains  only  the  words  which  are  used 
in  the  Bible.  Relics  came  in  fashion  after  the  Bible 
was  written.  In  those  old  times  they  were  not  in  the 
habit  of  mutilating  the  bodies  and  disturbing  the 
bones  of  the  pious  dead.  They  respected  the  remains 
of  the  departed  by  letting  them  alone,  as  king  Josiah 
ordered  the  people  to  do  in  the  case  of  the  bones  of 
the  two  prophets.  They  were  going  to  disturb  them, 
but  he  told  them  to  let  them  alone,  2  Kings,  23 :  18. 
This  is  the  way  in  which  Protestants  respect  the  re- 
mains of  the  dead.  It  is  rather  queer  that  Catholics, 
in  the  lack  of  other  scripture  to  support  their  doctrine 
of  relics,  appeal  to  this,  and  they  will  have  it  that 
Josiah,  like  themselves,  entertained  a  great  respect  for 
relics.  The  reference  to  that  passage  must  be  on 
the  principle  of  lucus,  a  non  lucendo,  [light  from  no 
light.]  I  cannot  account  for  it  in  any  other  way. 

By  the  way,  I  did  not  even  find  relics  in  the  con- 
cordance to  the  Apocrypha.  But  Johnson  has  it.  A 
dictionary,  you  know,  takes  in  all  words.  I  find  the 
general  signification  of  the  word  to  be  remains.  In 
the  Catholic  church  it  is  used  to  designate  "  the  re- 
mains of  the  bodies,  or  clothes,  of  saints  or  martyrs, 
and  the  instruments  by  which  they  were  put  to  death, 
devoutly  preserved,  in  honor  to  their  memory ; — 
kissed,  revered,  and  carried  in  procession."  This  is 
the  best  definition  of  relics  I  can  any  where  find.  I 
am  indebted  for  it  to  the  Encyclopedia.  But  it  is  not 
a  perfect  definition.  There  are  some  things  preserved 
and  revered  as  relics  which  don't  exactly  fall  under 


96  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

it ;  as,  for  example,  the  rope  with  which  Judas  hanged 
himself,  and  the  tail  of  Balaam's  ass,  both  of  which 
are  kept  and  shown  as  relics. 

But  it  may  be  asked  if  relics  are  not  out  of  date. 
The  inquirer  should  know  that  nothing  ever  gets  out 
of  date  with  the  Catholics.  Always  and  every  where 
the  same  is  their  boast  respecting  their  religion.  Be- 
sides, in  the  Baltimore  publication,  "  the  Guide  to 
Heaven,"  notice  is  taken  of  relics.  It  says  that  the 
saints  are  to  be  honored  and  invocated,  and  that  their 
relics  are  to  be  respected.  Well,  and  where  is  the 
harm  of  respecting  relics  1  I  might  retaliate  and  ask 
where  is  the  use — what  is  the  good  of  it  ?  They  must 
think  that  devotion  is  promoted  by  these  relics.  But 
I  cannot  see  how  the  spirit  of  devotion  is  to  be  pro- 
moted by  contemplating  St.  Joseph's  axe  and  saw,  or 
the  comb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  even  the  finger  of 
St.  Ann.  If  a  person  even  knows  that  he  is  handling 
a  piece  of  the  identical  wood  of  the  cross,  it  does  not 
occur  to  me  how  that  is  to  enkindle  the  flame  of  piety 
in  his  heart.  The  ancient  method  of  exciting  the 
glow  of  devotion  was  quite  different.  It  was  by  me- 
ditation on  spiritual  subjects.  It  was  while  the  Psalm- 
ist was  musing,  that  "  the  fire  burned  "  within  him. 
But  it  seems  the  Catholics  come  to  the  same  thing  by 
the  aid  of  their  relics.  Well,  if  devotion  is  kindled 
by  relics,  towards  whom  does  it  flame  ?  Towards  the 
saints,  to  be  sure,  whose  relics  they  are.  These  re- 
mains can  only  remind  them  of  those  to  whom  they 
once  belonged.  So  that  it  is  the  religious  veneration 
of  saints,  not  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  that  is  promoted 
by  relics.  All  that  can  be  said  for  them  is,  that  they 
serve  the  cause  of  idolatry. 


THOUGHTS   ON  FOPEBY.  97 

But  I  have  been  writing  as  if  these  relics  were 
genuine  remains  of  the  saints — the  saw  they  show 
really  St.  Joseph's,  and  the  finger  St.  Ann's.  The 
reader  must  excuse  me  for  indulging  such  a  supposi- 
tion. The  very  idea  of  such  things  being  preserved, 
and  transmitted  through  eighteen  centuries,  is  prepos- 
terous. Their  own  writers  acknowledge  that  many  of 
them  are  spurious — that  bones  are  often  consecrated, 
which,  so  far  from  belonging  to  saints,  probably  did 
not  belong  to  Christians,  if  indeed  to  human  beings. 
If  this  be  so,  how  are  we  to  know  which  are  genuine  ? 
There  can  be  no  internal  evidence  to  distinguish 
them.  The  bones  of  saints  must  look  just  like  other 
bones.  I  know  it  is  said  there  is  an  odor  about  the 
genuine  relics  which  does  not  belong  to  the  remains 
of  the  vulgar  dead.  How  that  is  I  cannot  say.  I 
understand  that,  in  the  failure  of  the  ordinary,  external 
evidence,  the  Pope  takes  it  on  him  to  pronounce  them 
genuine.  This  is  making  short  work  of  it.  But  some 
of  the  authorities  of  the  church  of  Rome  go  so  far  as 
to  say  that  it  is  not  necessary  the  relics  should  be 
genuine.  It  is  enough  that  the  worshiper  has  an  in- 
tention of  honoring  the  saints  whose  bones  he  sup- 
poses them  to  be.  If  this  is  correct  doctrine,  churches 
and  chapels  may  be  readily  furnished  with  relics,  and 
the  defect  in  this  particular,  which  Catholics  deplore 
in  regard  to  many  of  their  establishments,  be  supplied 
without  going  farther  than  the  nearest  graveyard. 

If  any  one  should  still  think  that  the  relics  may  be 
genuine,  there  is  a  consideration  which,  if  I  mistake 
not,  will  carry  complete  conviction  to  his  mind.  It  is, 
that  there  are  altogether  too  many  of  these  relics,  so 
that  some  of  them  must  be  spurious.  Five  devout  pil- 
9 


93  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY, 

grims  happening  to  meet  on  their  return  from  Rome, 
found,  on  comparing  their  notes,  that  each  had  been 
honored  with  a  foot  of  the  very  ass  upon  which  Christ 
rode  to  Jerusalem.  Here  were  five  feet  for  one  ani- 
mal. Moreover,  it  is  said  that  there  are  as  many 
pieces  of  the  timber  of  the  true  cross  in  different  parts 
of  Europe,  as  would  supply  a  town  with  fuel  for  a 
winter ! 

But,  say  they,  were  not  the  bones  of  Joseph  pre- 
served, and  afterwards  removed  to  Canaan.  Undoubt- 
edly they  were.  But  they  were  all  kept  together  in 
a  coffin,  and  they  were  removed,  not  to  be  worshiped, 
but  to  be  buried.  Joseph,  being  persuaded  that  God 
would  visit  his  people,  and  bring  them  out  of  Egypt 
into  Canaan,  enjoined  it  on  them  to  take  his  remains 
along  with  them,  for  he  wished  them  to  repose  in  the 
land  of  promise.  What  this  has  to  do  with  relics  I 
have  not  the  discernment  to  perceive.  How  it  bears 
any  resemblance  to  the  Catholic  practice  of  disturbing 
coffins  and  separating  bone  from  bone,  and  cherishing 
them  as  things  to  be  revered,  I  cannot  see.  Yet  no 
less  a  character  than  Cardinal  Bellarmine  appeals 
to  this  fact  in  support  of  their  doctrine  of  relics.  So 
also  they  cite  the  case  recorded  in  2  Kings,  13:  21,  of 
the  dead  man  that  was  revived  by  coming  in  contact 
with  the  bones  of  Elisha.  But  how  does  this  favor 
relics  ?  The  bones  of  Elisha  were  quietly  reposing  in 
the  place  where  they  were  laid  at  his  death.  Not  one 
of  them  had  been  touched.  But  if  relics  had  been  in 
vogue  then,  do  you  suppose  the  remains  of  such  an 
eminent  saint  as  Elisha  would  have  been  left  undis- 
turbed ? 

I  was  surprised  to  find  that  Bellarmine  refers  to 


THOUGHTS   ON     POPERY.  99 

Deut.  34 :  6,  in  support  of  relics.  It  is  that  remarka- 
ble passage  in  which  the  Lord  is  said  to  have  buried 
Moses  in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab,  and  that  no 
man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day.  I  sup- 
pose the  cardinal  would  have  us  infer  from  this,  that 
if  the  place  of  Moses'  body  had  been  known,  it  would 
have  been  dug  up  and  converted  into  relics.  And 
therefore  the  Lord  took  care  it  should  not  be  known. 
The  devil,  it  seems,  from  Jude,  5:  9,  contended  for  it 
for  some  such  purpose  as  this,  but  he  was  foiled.  The 
reference  to  this  passage  strikes  me  as  rather  an  un- 
happy one. 

But  were  not  handkerchiefs  and  aprons  brought 
from  the  body  of  Paul,  and  miracles  thereby  wrought  ? 
Yes,  but  they  were  not  relics.  Paul  was  living.  Be- 
sides, who  does  not  see  that  those  articles  of  dress 
were  but  signs  to  connect  the  miracles,  in  the  minds 
of  the  people,  with  the  person  of  God's  inspired  am- 
bassador ?  Was  any  honor  due  to  them  ?  Do  we 
hear  of  their  being  preserved  and  revered  ?  No.  I  do 
not  find  them  in  any  list  of  relics.  They  passed  again 
immediately  into  their  former  appropriate  use  as  hand- 
kerchiefs and  aprons.  Finally,  they  appeal  to  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  shadow  of  Peter,  as  related,  Acts,  5 :  15,  in 
proof  of  the  virtue  of  relics.  But  as  there  appears  to 
be  no  substance  in  this  argument,  I  leave  it  unanswer- 
ed ;  and  have  only  to  add,  that  I  wonder  not  that  infi- 
dels abound  so  in  Catholic  countries,  when  Christi- 
anity is  held  up  before  them  as  embracing  and  even 
giving  prominence  to  such  doctrines  as  the  veneration 
of  relics,  the  invocation  of  saints,  and  many  more  like 
them. 


100  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 


26.     Seven  Sacraments. 

What !  Seven  !  How  is  this  ?  I  read  in  the  Bible  of 
only  two.  Whence  have  they  the  other  Jive  ?  O,  they 
come  from  the  other  source  of  Christian  doctrine,  tra- 
dition. They  were  handed  down.  It  is  true,  the  apos- 
tles wrote  of  only  two  sacraments  ;  but  Catholics 
would  have  us  believe  that  they  preached  and  con- 
versed about  five  others :  and  those  that  heard  them 
spoke  of  these  sacraments  to  others  ;  and  they  to  others 
still ;  and  so  the  story  passed  from  lip  to  lip,  until  the 
Council  of  Trent,  I  believe  it  was,  concluded  that 
something  had  better  be  written  about  these  five  extra 
sacraments.  I  wonder  that  was  never  thought  of  be- 
fore. It  is  surprising  that  it  never  occurred  to  the 
apostles,  when  they  were  writing  their  Epistles,  to 
say  a  syllable  about  these  seven  sacraments.  It  would 
seem  to  have  been  very  thoughtless  in  them.  I  may  be 
very  hard  to  please,  but  I  cannot  help  feeling  a  desire 
to  have  Scripture,  as  well  as  unwritten  tradition,  in 
support  of  a  doctrine  or  practice  called  Christian.  I 
like  to  be  able  to  trace  a  doctrine  all  the  way  back  to 
the  Bible,  and  to  find  it  originating  in  the  very  oracles 
of  God  themselves.  Some  think  it  sufficient,  if  they 
can  follow  a  doctrine  back  as  far  as  the  earlier  fathers ; 
and  especially  if  they  can  trace  it  to  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius.  But  this  does  not  satisfy  me.  There  are  cer- 
tain other  Epistles,  rather  more  ancient,  in  which  I 
would  like  to  find  the  doctrine.  Ignatius  was  a  very 
good  man,  but  he  did  not  belong  to  the  days  of  Paul 
by  any  means.  Ignatius,  Clemens,  and  all  those  good 
fathers,  stood  on  the  bank  of  the  stream,  but  Paul  and 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  101 

his  associates  sat  around  the  fountain.  These  last  saw 
truth  in  its  rise ;  the  others  only  saw  it  in  its  flow. 
True,  they  were  near  the  source,  but  they  were  not 
at  it ;  and  who  knows  not  that  a  stream  may  be  cor- 
rupted very  near  its  source  ?  If  I  live  eighteen  or  nine- 
teen miles  distant  from  a  certain  fountain,  whose 
stream  passes  by  my  residence,  and  I  want  to  know 
whether  its  waters  have  been  corrupted,  do  I  trace 
back  the  stream  until  I  come  within  a  mile  or  two  of 
the  fountain,  and  there  stop,  concluding  that  such  as 
the  water  is  there,  such  it  must  be  at  the  spring  ?  Do 
I  not  rather  go  all  the  way  up  to  the  fountain  ?  Which 
ought  I  to  do  ?  It  strikes  me  as  very  strange,  that  any 
should  suspend  their  search  after  truth  a  century  or 
two  this  side  of  the  Bible  era.  I  think  they  should  go 
all  the  way  back  to  the  Bible. 

But  I  am  wandering  from  my  subject,  which  is  the 
sacraments.  What  are  those  other  five  ?  One  is  mar- 
riage. What !  marriage  a  sacrament !  How  does  it 
answer  to  the  definition  of  sacrament  ?  What  spiritual 
thing  is  signified  by  it  ?  Marriage  is  said  to  be  "  ho- 
norable in  all,"  but  nothing  is  said  of  its  being  a  sa- 
crament. If  it  be  a  sacrament,  why  are  not  priests,  as 
well  as  others,  permitted  to  take  this  sacrament? 
Why  should  the  universal  clergy  be  debarred  the  pri- 
vilege of  this  holy  thing  ?  Does  its  sacred  character 
render  it  unsuitable  to  those  who  fill  the  sacred  office  ? 

The  other  day  I  was  thinking — for,  being  a  Protes- 
tant, I  dare  think  even  on  religion — and  this  thought 
occurred  to  me  :  "  Is  it  possible  that  God  has  denied 
the  whole  body  of  the  clergy,  of  all  nations  and  ages, 
the  privilege  of  knowing  how  he  pitieth  them  that  fear 
him ;  and  of  approaching  to  the  experimental  know- 
9* 


102  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

ledge  of  his  exceeding  readiness  to  give  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him — the  privilege,  in  other 
words,  of  being  able  to  feel  the  force  of  some  of  the 
most  touching  representations  which  he  has  made  of 
his  dispositions  towards  his  creatures,  founded  on  the 
parental  relation  ?"  I  read  in  the  Bible  that  "  like  as 
a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pitieth  them 
that  fear  him."  Now,  can  it  be  sinful  for  a  minister 
of  Jesus  Christ  to  know  by  experience  (the  only  way 
in  which  it  can  be  fully  known)  how  a  father  pitieth, 
and  how,  consequently,  the  Lord  pitieth  his  people  ? 
I  think  it  is  man,  and  not  God,  that  constitutes  this 
a  sin.  Again,  does  God  make  this  general  appeal  to 
his  creatures,  "  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to 
give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more 
shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
them  that  ask  him !" — and  has  he  at  the  same  time 
excluded  a  large  class  of  his  creatures  from  the  privi- 
lege of  ever  knowing  how  well  disposed  parents  are 
to  bestow  good  things  on  their  children  ?  And  has  he 
laid  under  this  ban  the  very  persons  whom  he  has  ap- 
pointed to  represent  and  testify  of  him  to  men  ?  Has 
he  appealed  to  the  parental  feelings  of  his  creatures, 
and  then  forbidden  a  large  and  important  class  of 
them  to  know  what  those  feelings  are  ?  This  is  rather 
more  than  I  can  believe. 

A  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  may  decline  the  privi- 
lege of  marriage  in  his  own  case — he  may  not  use  that 
power,  as  Paul,  in  his  peculiar  circumstances,  did  not, 
and  as  many  a  Protestant  minister  does  not.  This  is 
one  thing ;  but  has  God  cut  off  the  whole  order  of  the 
clergy  from  even  the  right  to  marry?  That  is  the 
question.  And  that  is  a  very  different  thing. 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  103 


37.    Transubstantiation. 

Because  Christ  says,  in  reference  to  the  bread,  "  This 
is  my  body,"  the  Catholics  contend  that  the  bread  is 
changed  into  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  this  they  call 
Transubstantiation.  And  when  we  say  that  the  pas- 
sage is  not  to  be  interpreted  literally,  but  that  the 
bread  is  merely  indicated  as  the  representative  of 
Christ's  body,  they  reply  with  wonderful  confidence, 
"  Ah,  but  does  he  not  say  it  is  his  body — does  he  say 
it  represents  his  body  merely — what  authority  have 
Protestants  to  bring  in  a  figure  here  ?"  Now  let  me 
be  heard.  I  have  no  disposition  to  ridicule  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation,  especially  as  it  professes  to  be 
founded  on  Scripture.  I  would  give  always  a  candid- 
hearing  to  the  claims  of  a  doctrine  which  even  seems 
to  be  held  ojjt  of  respect  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible. 
But  I  must  say  that  the  Catholic  does  not  carry  his 
veneration  for  the  Scriptures  far  enough ;  or  he  is  not 
consistent  in  his  interpretation  of  them.  I  think  I  can 
show  that,  to  be  consistent  with  himself,  he  should  be- 
lieve in  many  more  than  one  Transubstantiation.  Let 
him  turn  to  Luke,  22  :  19,  20.  He  reads  in  verse  19, 
"  This  is  my  body."  Therefore,  he  reasons,  the  bread 
becomes  the  body  of  Christ.  Very  well.  But  read  verse 
20 ;  "  This  cup  is  the  new  testament."  Here  is  ano- 
ther Transubstantiation.  The  cup  or  chalice  becomes 
the  new  testament.  It  is  no  longer  gold  or  silver, 
but  a  testament  or  will !  Does  not  Christ  say  it  is  the 
new  testament  ?  What  right  have  Catholics  to  bring 
in  &  figure  here  ?  The  cup  is  a  will — Christ  says  so. 
To  be  sure,  if  it  were  carried  to  a  probate  office,  it 


104  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

would  be  thought  out  of  place,  and  an  article  for  a  sil- 
versmith to  prove,  rather  than  a  judge  of  probate.  But 
no  matter  for  that.  What  if  the  senses  do  tell  you  that 
it  is  still  a  cup,  and  the  body  still  bread,  will  you  be- 
lieve those  liars,  the  senses  ?  But  if  they  are  such  liars 
as  this  would  make  them  out  to  be,  why  should  I  ever 
believe  them — why  should  I  believe  them,  when  they 
tell  me  that  I  see  in  the  Bible  those  words  :  "  This  is 
my  body  ?"  That  testimony  of  the  senses  the  Catholic 
believes ;  but  if  they  lie  about  the  body,  still  declaring 
it  is  bread,  after  it  has  ceased  to  be  any  such  thing, 
why  may  they  not  lie  in  regard  to  the  letters  which 
spell  "  this  is  my  body."  Under  the  appearance  of 
these  letters  there  may  be  something  quite  different, 
even  as,  under  the  appearance  of  bread  in  the  Eucha- 
rist, is  the  body  of  Christ,  as  the  Catholics  affirm! 

But  these  are  not  the  only  instances  of  Transub- 
stantiation.  The  Bible  is  full  of  them.  I  ffrid  two  cases 
of  this  change  recorded  in  Revelation,  1  :  20 ;  one  in 
which  certain  stars  become  angels,  and  another  in 
which  certain  candlesticks  become  churches.  Do  you 
doubt  it?  Read  for  yourself :  "The  seven  stars  are 
the  angels  of  the  seven  churches,  and  the  seven  can- 
dlesticks which  thou  sawest,  are  the  seven  churches." 
The  construction  here  is  precisely  similar  to  "  this  is 
my  body."  Christ  is  the  speaker  in  each  case,  and  he 
says  the  stars  are  angels,  and  the  candlesticks  are 
churches.  Who  has  any  right  to  imagine  a  figure 
here? 

Perhaps  every  body  does  not  know  that  Transub- 
stantiation  is  an  Old  Testament  doctrine.  But,  ac- 
cording to  this  mode  of  interpretation,  it  is  St.  Paul, 
in  1  Cor.  10  :  4,  alluding  to  the  rock  which  Moses 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  105 

smote  in  the  wilderness,  says,  "  That  rock  was 
Christ" — not  it  represented,  but  it  was  Christ !  Away 
with  your  figures. 

Many  other  examples  of  Transubstantiation  might 
be  given  from  the  Old  Testament.  Let  two  remark- 
able cases  suffice,  of  which  we  have  an  account  in  Ge- 
nesis, 41  :  26,  27 :  "  The  seven  good  kine  are  seven 
years,  and  the  seven  good  ears  are  seven  years,"  &c. 
Here  seven  cows  and  seven  ears  of  corn  are  changed 
into  seven  years  of  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days 
each  ! 

I  suppose  I  might  find  many  hundred  examples  of 
these  Transubstantiations.  Now,  does  the  Catholic 
believe  in  all  of  them?  He  ought,  most  undoubtedly 
he  ought,  on  the  same  reason  that  he  believes  in  one. 
Let  him  then  either  believe  in  them  all,  or  else  never 
adduce,  ((this  is  my  body,"  in  proof  of  the  Transub- 
stantiation held  in  his  church.  I  wish  Mr.  H.  or  some 
body  else  would  set  me  right,  if  I  err  in  this  argument. 


£8.   Half  a  Sacrament. 

Half  a  sacrament !  Who  ever  heard  of  such  a  thing  ? 
A  sacrament  divided !  Yes,  even  so.  The  authorities 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  Pope,  Council,  &c. 
have  divided  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which  our  Savior  instituted  the  same  night  in  which 
he  was  betrayed  ;  and,  ever  since  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, they  have  allowed  the  people  only  half  of  it. 


106  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

They  have  told  them  that  they  must  put  up  with  the 
bread,  for  that  they  want  the  cup  for  themselves.  But 
did  not  Christ  give  the  cup,  in  the  original  institution 
of  the  sacrament,  to  as  many  as  he  gave  the  bread  ? 
Yes,  Christ  did.  So  say  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and 
Paul.  He  took  the  cup,  they  tell  us,  and  gave  it  to  them ; 
and  Matthew  adds  that  he  said  in  giving  it,  "  Drink  ye 
all  of  it."  Let  not  this  be  omitted  by  any  disciple.  It 
would  seem  as  if  Christ  foresaw  what  the  Constance 
Council  was  going  to  do,  and  therefore  said,  "  Drink 
ye  all  of  it."  Rome  might  with  more  plausibility  have 
denied  her  laity  the  other  half  of  the  sacrament — the 
bread.  After  the  command  to  take  the  cup,  there  fol- 
lows the  reason ;  observe  it :  "  For  this  is  my  blood  of 
the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many,  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  Now  the  Catholics  say  that  only 
priests  were  present  on  that  occasion,  and  that  the  giv- 
ing of  the  cup  to  them  can  be  no  precedent  for  giving 
it  to  the  laity.  But,  though  we  should  admit  that  they 
were  at  that  time  priests,  I  want  to  know  if  the  reason 
for  partaking  of  the  cup  does  not  apply  to  others  be- 
sides the  clergy.  Was  not  the  blood  shed  for  the  laity 
as  well  as  for  the  clergy  ?  And  if  this  is  the  reason 
why  any  should  partake,  it  is  equally  a  reason  why  all 
should  for  whom  the  blood  was  shed.  The  precept  and 
privilege  to  drink  is  co-extensive  with  the  reason  an- 
nexed to  it.  Now  I  have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  re- 
garding the  propitiatory  death  of  Christ  as  a  part  of 
the  benefit  of  clergy — as  one  of  the  peculiar  privileges 
of  the  priesthood.  I  object  therefore  to  the  restriction 
of  the  cup  of  blessing  to  the  clergy.  The  symbol  of 
the  blood  shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  I 
claim  to  be  my  privilege  as  truly  as  that  of  any  priest 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  107 

Christ  did  not  shed  his  blood  for  the  sons  of  Levi 
alone. 

Yes,  Christ  gave  it  in  both  kinds — and  what  is  more, 
the  Catholics  themselves  acknowledge  that  he  did,  and 
that  the  primitive  church  administered  it  in  both  kinds, 
yet  (hoc  tamen  non  obstante  are  their  very  words) 
they  appoint  that  the  people  shall  receive  it  but  in  one 
kind,  that  is,  notwithstanding  Christ  and  the  primitive 
church.  And  they  declare  them  accursed  who  teach 
or  practice  otherwise.  What  is  this  but  anathema- 
tizing Christ  ?  But  surely  they  must  have  something 
to  say  in  justification  of  their  conduct  in  this  respect. 
To  be  sure  they  have.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  Pope 
is  the  head  of  the  church,  and  that  he  is  infallible ;  or 
if  he  is  not,  yet  the  firm  Pope  &  Co.  are  ?  Yes,  but 
there  was  Pope  Gelasius,  who  lived  a  good  while  be- 
fore. He  having  heard  of  some  Manicheans  who  re- 
ceived the  bread  without  the  wine,  decided  that  such 
a  dividing  of  one  and  the  same  sacrament  might  not 
be  done  without  a  heinous  sacrilege.  Was  not  he  head 
of  the  church  too,  and  was  not  he  infallible  ?  If  he  was 
not,  I  wonder  how  he  could  transmit  infallibility. 

This  withholding  of  the  cup  is  one  of  the  boldest 
strokes,  of  that  church.  I  cannot  help  admiring  the 
courage  it  manifests.  Who  would  have  thought  it 
could  have  succeeded  so  well  ?  I  wonder  they  even 
undertook  to  carry  this  point.  However,  they  have  done 
it.  There  was  some  murmuring  against  it,  to  be  sure. 
Huss  and  Jerome,  made  a  noise  about  it,  but  they  just 
burnt  them,  and  they  made  no  more  noise  about  it. 

But  are  not  Christians  followers,  that  is,  imitators 
of  Christ  ?  O  yes.  But  this  withholding  of  the  cup  is 
not  doing  like  Christ.  The  Catholics  say  that  Christ 


108  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

is  with  their  church  to  the  end  of  time.  It  strikes  me, 
however,  that  he  could  not  have  been  with  them  at 
that  point  in  the  progress  of  time  when  the  Council  of 
Constance  sat. 

I  do  not  know  what  others  think,  but  for  my  own 
part  I  don't  believe  that  any  power  on  earth  has  a 
right  to  limit  a  grant  of  Jesus  Christ,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  take  away  what  he  has  given.  He  said  of 
the  cup,  "  drink  ye  all  of  it " — and  I,  for  one,  will  do 
it,  and  I  think  all  ought — and  if  the  Catholics  will 
come  over  to  us,  they  too  shall  have  the  cup  of  salva- 
tion. O,  if  I  had  the  ear  of  the  Catholics  now,  I 
would  not  ask  them  to  confess  their  sins  to  me,  but 
there  is  a  thing  I  would  tell  them :  I  would  say,  My 
dear  Catholic  brethren,  you  never  remember  Christ  in 
his  sacrament.  You  only  half  remember  him.  He 
said,  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  me.  You  only 
do  one.  You  do  not  show  the  Lord's  death ;  for  Paul 
says,  "  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this 
cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death."  It  is  only  they 
who  do  both  that  make  this  exhibition.  Christ's 
death  is  not  shown  by  the  bread  merely,  but  by  both 
the  elements.  I  know  your  church  says  that  the 
blood  is  in  the  body,  and  that,  in  taking  one,  both  are 
taken,  for  that  "  Christ  was  entire  and  truly  under 
each  kind,"  as  the  council  decrees.  But  how  came 
Christ  himself  to  know  nothing  of  this  ?  Did  he  do  a 
superfluous  thing  in  giving  the  cup?  What  if  the 
blood  is  in  the  body,  and  the  bread  being  changed 
into  the  body,  we  take  the  one  in  taking  the  other, 
we  want  the  blood  separated  from  the  body,  the 
blood  shed.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  not  an  atone- 
ment for  sin,  except  as  it  is  shed.  Catholics,  you 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY*  109 

never  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  the  Lord's 
Supper  there  was  a  cup.  In  yours  there  is  none. 
You  hold  that  the  discourse  in  John,  6,  relates  to  an 
atonement,  and  there  it  is  written,  "  except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have 
no  life  in  you."  Now,  according  to  his  own  princi- 
ples, you  have  no  life  in  you,  for  you  do  not  drink 
his  blood.  The  most  you  can  be  said  to  do  is,  that 
you  eat  it  in  connection  with  his  body  !  One  thing 
more,  Catholic  brethren.  There  can  be  no  such  thing 
in  reality  as  half  a  sacrament.  To  divide  a  sacrament 
is  to  destroy  it.  What  follows  then,  but  that  the 
whole  sacrament  is  taken  from  you !  '  Look  at  this — 
just  fix  your  mind  five  minutes  on  this  subject,  and 
you  are,  I  do  not  say  what,  but  you  are  no  longer  a 
Catholic.  Five  minutes.  That  is  all.  But  you  say, 
I  must  not  doubt ;  yet  you  may  think,  and  God  the 
judge  will  never  condemn  you  for  exercising  your 
mind. 


29.    Extreme  Unction. 

When  it  looks  as  if  one  was  going  to  die,  then  by 
all  means  let  the  priest  be  sent  for :  and  when  he  has 
come,  let  him  receive  the  dying  man's  confession,  (but 
if  the  priest  should  be  long  in  coming,  I  would  advise 
him  to  confess  to  God.  I  think  it  would  answer  as 
well.  Indeed  I  prefer  that  near  way  to  pardon,  to  the 
other  circuitous  route) — and  let  him  then  in  that  ex- 
tremity anoint  him  with  oil !  This  is  extreme  unction 
10 


110  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

— a  sacrament — one  of  the  seven!  I  think  they  must 
have  been  at  a  loss  to  make  up  the  seven,  when  they 
pressed  this  into  the  service. 

There  don't  seem  to  be  a  great  deal  of  religion  in  it; 
nor  indeed  any  excess  of  common  sense.  But  to  speak 
of  it  as  constituting  a  preparation  for  death  is  really 
shocking.  What !  a  preparation  for  dying,  and  for 
meeting  and  answering  to  God,  procured  by  the  in- 
tervention and  unction  of  a  human  priest — done  by 
oil !  Truly  this  is  an  easy  way  of  getting  to  heaven, 
particularly  where  priests  are  plenty.  I  do  not  won- 
der that  the  Catholic  religion  is  popular.  This  is  in- 
deed prophesying  smooth  things.  We  Protestants 
have  no  such  doctrine  to  preach.  When  we  are 
called  to  see  a  sick  person,  we  candidly  acknowledge 
that  there  is  nothing  we  can  do  for  him  which  shall 
infallibly  secure  his  salvation.  We  tell  him  what  he 
must  do  :  that  he  must  repent  and  believe  in  Christ : 
and  then  we  ask  God  to  undertake  and  do  for  him.  It 
is  only  on  certain  conditions  that  we  can  assure  him 
of  his  salvation.  The  priests  say  that  they  can  in- 
sure the  person's  salvation  ;  but  to  any  such  power  as 
that  we  do  not  pretend. 

But  have  not  the  tUatholics  plain  Scripture  for  their 
doctrine  of  extreme  unction  ?  If  they  have  ;  if  it  is 
written,  and  not  merely  handed  down,  then  I  am  at 
once  a  believer  in  it.  Let  us  see  :  they  adduce  two 
passages  in  support  of  their  dogma,  Mark,  6  :  13,  and 
James,  5  :  14.'  The  first  is  historical.  It  affirms  that 
the  apostles  "  anointed  with  oil  many  that  were  sick 
and  healed  them."  The  other  is  hortatory.  "  Is  any 
sick  among  you  ?  let  him  call  for  the  elders  of  the 
church  ;  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  Ill 

with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  that  is,  doing  what 
the  apostles  are  represented  by  Mark  as  having  done ; 
and  doing  it,  as  appears  from  the  next  verse,  with  the 
same  end  in  view,  viz.  healing.  Now,  what  authority 
for  the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction  is  there  here  ? 
Here  is  indeed  an  anointing  with  oil  by  an  ecclesias- 
tic. But  who  does  not  see  in  how  many  particulars, 
and  how  widely  this  anointing  differs  from  the  ex- 
treme unction  of  the  Catholics  ?  Their  anointing  pro- 
ceeds on  the  supposition  that  the  person  is  going  to 
die ;  and  could  his  recovery  be  foreseen,  it  would  be 
omitted.  But  the  anointing  practised  by  the  apostles 
and  elders  of  the  church  was  in  order  to  the  recovery 
of  the  person,  and  was  in  every  case  connected  with 
his  recovery.  Their  anointing  was  the  attendant  and 
token  of  a  miraculous  cure.  It  held  precisely  the 
same  place  with  Christ's  making  clay  of  spittle,  and 
anointing  therewith  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man ;  or 
with  Naaman's  being  directed  to  go  and  wash  seven 
times  in  Jordan.  It  was,  like  each  of  these,  an  exter- 
nal, and  in  itself  inefficacious  sign  of  a  miraculous  re- 
covery ;  and  even  now  there  is  no  objection  to  the  use 
of  the  sign,  if  the  thing  signified  is  to  be  expected. 
Let  the  priests  anoint  with  abundance  of  oil  all  their 
sick,  if  they  can  accompany  that  unction  with  such 
a  prayer  of  faith  as  shall  save  the  sick.  But  if  the 
miraculous  recoveries  have  ceased,  let  there  be  a  do- 
ing away  of  the  sign.  As  soon  as  any  sign  becomes 
insignificant,  let  it  cease  to  be  used.  Extreme  unc- 
tion is  now  a  sign  of  nothing.  There  was  no  use  in 
going  down  into  the  pool  of  Bethesda  after  the  angel 
had  ceased  to  pay  his  periodical  visit  to  it.  So  in  this 
ease,  there  being  now  no  healing,  there  need  be,  and 
there  should  be,  no  anointing". 


112  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

How  the  priests  now  differ  in  their  use  of  the  oil 
from  those  whose  successors  they  pretend  to  be  !  The 
apostles  and  elders  anointed  persons  with  a  view  to 
their  living ;  but  the  priests  with  a  view  to  their  dy- 
ing. The  former  would  not  anoint,  if  they  foresaw 
the  person  was  to  die ;  the  latter  will  not,  if  they  fore- 
see that  he  is  to  live.  How  at  odds  they  are  !  How 
Scripture  and  tradition  do  quarrel !  And  the  worst  of 
it  is,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  bringing  about  a  recon- 
ciliation between  them. 

Among  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church,  I  am 
at  a  loss  whether  to  give  the  palm  to  this  or  to  purga- 
tory. Purgatory  teaches  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
jire.  Extreme  unction,  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
oil.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  much  Christianity  in 
either.  Extreme  unction  is,  however,  the  smoothest 
doctrine.  Decidedly  so.  Jesus  Christ  came  by  water 
and  blood.  The  salvation  he  proclaims  is  by  these; 
and  the  sacraments  he  instituted,  are  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper.  These  signify  something:  the 
first,  regeneration;  the  second,  the  propitiation  made 
for  our  sins. 


30.     Doing  Penance. 

Insufferable !  What  ?  Why,  that  the  Catholic  trans- 
lators of  the  Bible  should  render  the  Greek  word, 
which  signifies  repentance,  (metanoia^)  by  the  phrase 
doing  penance !  I  would  not  willingly  be  uncharita- 
ble, imputing  a  bad  motive  where  a  good  one  might  have 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  113 

been  present.  But  I  must  say  that  I  know  not  how 
to  reconcile  this  rendering  of  metanoia  with  their  in- 
tegrity as  translators.  I  cannot  help  believing  that 
they  knew  better.  Could  they  have  supposed  that 
they  were  selecting  the  most  judicious  method  of  con- 
veying the  mind  of  the  Spirit  as  expressed  in  that 
word,  when  they  concluded  on  rendering  it  doing  pen- 
ance ?  Why,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  did  they 
use  two  English  words  (coining  one  of  them  more- 
over for  the  occasion)  to  convey  the  meaning  of  one 
Greek  word  ?  Was  there  any  necessity  for  it  ?  Was 
there  no  single  English  word  that  would  express  the 
sense  ?  There  was  repentance,  the  word  adopted  by 
the  translators  of  the  common  English  Bible.  What 
objection  lay  to  the  use  of  that  ?  Why  was  that  passed 
by ;  and  especially  why  was  it  passed  by  in  order  to 
give  a  preference  to  such  a  phrase  as  doing  penance? 
If  they  had  disliked  repentance,  they  might  with  more 
propriety  have  employed  the  word  reformation.  It 
would  seem  as  if  they  were  anxious  to  avoid  the  use 
of  any  word  which  expressed  or  implied  either  sorrow 
or  amendment,  and  therefore  they  fixed  on  the  phrase 
doing  penance.  I  am  mistaken  if  these  translators 
have  not  a  heavy  account  to  give.  This  single  ren- 
dering, if  it  were  the  only  exceptionable  one,  would  be 
as  a  millstone  about  the  neck  of  that  translation.  Just 
think  of  the  false  impression,  and  that  on  a  point  of 
the  highest  moment,  made  on  tAe  minds  of  so  many 
millions  by  this  one  egregiously  erroneous  version. 

Contemplate  the  state  of  the  case.     God,  in  pros- 
pect of  the  judgment  day,  and  by  the  terror  of  it,  com- 
mands all  men  every  where  to  do  a  certain  thing, 
Acts,  17:  30,  31;  and  Christ  says  that  except  they 
10* 


114  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

do  it,  they  shall  perish.   Luke,  13 :  3.   This  thing  God 
expresses  by  the  Greek  term  metanoia.     But  all  do 
not  understand  Greek.    Wherefore,  for  the  admonition 
and  instruction  of  those  Catholics  who  read  only  the 
English  language,   and  who  cannot  be  persuaded  of 
the  sin  of  reading  the  Bible,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
render  that  word  into  English.     Certain  persons  un- 
dertake to  do  it,  that  is,  to  interpret  the  mind  of  God 
as  expressed  by  metanoia.     An.d  what  do  they  make 
it  out  to  mean  ?   Hear,  hear !    Doing-  penance  !    That 
is  it,  they  say.     "  Do  the  penance  which  your  priest 
appoints,  after  you  have  made  your  confession  to  him, 
and  that  is  all."     It  is  no  such  thing.     This  is  a  mis- 
representation of  the  Almighty.     This  is  not  the  sub- 
ject of  the  command  and  warning  to  which  reference 
has  been  made.     And  to  suppose  that  it  is  on  account 
of  this  that  angels  rejoice,  i.  e.  when  a  sinner  does 
penance,  is    truly   farcical.      O  what  a  translation ! 
"  There  is  joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  does 
penance."     Truly  angels  must  be  easily  made  to  re- 
joice, if  this  be  the   case !     How  it  sounds !     How 
offensive  to  the  very  ear,  and  how  much  more  to  the 
enlightened  judgment,  is  this  rendering !     "  God  com- 
mands all  to  do  penance.     Except  ye  do  penance,  ye 
shall  all  likewise  perish.     He  is  not  willing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  return  to  penance  /" 
Shocking !     Away  with  such  a  translation  from  the 
earth.     The  Douay  Bible  is  not  God's  Bible  ;  for  it 
purposely  misrepresents  him  in  a  main  point,  viz: 
on  the  article  of  repentance.     Here  is  a  translation  of 
metanoia  implying  no  sorrow  for  sin,  no  change  of 
mind,  (which  the  word  literally  signifies,)  nor  any 
moral  reformation  ;  but  only  the  doing  of  certain  ex- 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  115 

ternal,  and  generally  puerile,  things  prescribed  by  a 
priest ;  all  which  may  be  done  without  any  internal 
exercise — without  any  emotion  of  any  kind.  The 
word,  according  to  the  Catholics,  makes  no  requisition 
on  the  heart  whatever.  And  truly,  a  man  may  be  a 
good  Catholic  without  ever  feeling  any  thing,  unless 
it  be  the  bodily  pain  of  self-inflicted  penance.  And 
every  one  knows  that  thinking  is  not  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  good  Catholic.  Wherefore  a  man  may  be  a 
good  Catholic  without  either  thinking  or  feeling,  that 
is,  without  any  exercise  of  either  mind  or  heart.  All 
that  seems  requisite  is  mechanical  action.  Maelzel, 
the  constructor  of  automatons,  could  almost  make  one. 
Is  this  uncharitable  ?  It  is  true,  and  ought  to  be  said. 
It  ought  to  be  known  and  proclaimed  that  the  religion 
of  the  church  of  Rome  overlooks  the  reason,  con- 
science, and  heart  of  man,  addressing  no  appeal  to 
them,  and  indeed  making  no  use  of  them.  Is  it  then 
the  religion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Is  this  the  Christi- 
anity of  Christ?  It  cannot  be. 

I  ought  perhaps  to  say  that  I  find,  in  one  place  in 
the  Douay  Testament,  the  Greek  metanoeite  translated 
correctly,  repent.  It  occurs  in  Mark  1 :  15.  Whether 
it  was  done  in  a  moment  of  relenting,  or  through  in- 
advertence, I  cannot  say.  It  was  never  repeated  that 
I  can  find.  Perhaps  the  translators  had  to  do  penance 
for  presuming  to  render  the  word  in  that  one  case  cor- 
rectly. 

Do  you  not  see  what  a  difference  it  makes  to  the 
priests,  if  you  give  it  out  that  repentance  is  the  requi- 
sition? Then  a  sinner  will  be  saved  if  he  repent,  irre- 
spective of  the  priest.  The  great  High  Priest  that  is 
passed  into  the  heavens  will  see  to  the  case  of  every  true 


116  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

penitent.  But  if  the  requisition  be  doing  penance,  in 
that  case,  there  being  something  necessary  which  the 
priest  prescribes,  he  has  the  poor  sinner  completely  in 
his  power.  It  makes  the  salvation  to  depend  on  the 
act  of  the  little  low  priest.  Do  you  wonder  that  the 
priests  insist  on  the  translation  do  penance,  and  forbid 
the  people  to  read  in  a  Bible  which  requires  them  to 
repent  ? 

There  is  a  precious  note  in  the  Douay  connnected 
with  this  subject,  which  may  afford  me  a  topic  here- 
after. 


31.    The   Hardest  Religion. 

Among  the  compliments  which  our  brethren  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  pay  to  their  religion,  this  is  one. 
They  say  it  is  the  hardest  religion — that  no  other  re- 
ligion requires  so  much  of  its  votary.  Hence  they 
would  have  it  inferred  that  theirs  must  be  the  divine 
and  only  true  religion.  The  yoke  being  so  hard,  and 
the  burden  so  heavy,  they  must  of  course  be  Christ's. 

I  shall  examine  this  claim  to  the  precedence  in  point 
of  difficulty.  And  something  I  am  prepared  to  concede 
to  the  Church  of  Rome  on  this  score.  There  is  a  part 
of  her  faith  which  I  acknowledge  it  is  exceedingly 
hard  to  receive.  It  requires  a  powerful  effort  doubtless 
to  believe  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  viz.  that 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  sacrament  are  changed  into 
*  *  *  what?  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ?  Not 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  117 

that  alone,  but  also  into  his  soul  and  divinity !  Yes, 
it  is  hard  to  believe  it  is  so,  when  one  sees  it  is  not  so, 
and  knows  it  cannot  be  so.  It  is  hard  to  disbelieve  at 
will  those  long-tried  and  faithful  servants,  the  senses ; 
and  especially  that  first  of  the  five,  the  sight.  There  is 
difficulty  in  the  Catholic  religion  truly.  It  puts  a  tre- 
mendous strain  on  the  mind. 

There  is  also  her  doctrine  about  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism to  salvation,  which  some  of  us  find  it  very  hard 
to  believe.  One  reason  of  our  difficulty  is  that  that 
doctrine  bears  so  hard  upon  the  heathen,  and  particu- 
larly on  the  immense  multitude  of  infants  who  every 
where  die  without  baptism.  According  to  the  doctrine 
of  Rome,  that  baptism  is  indispensable  to  salvation, 
they  are  all  lost  just  for  the  want  of  a  little  water ! 
Poor  things,  they  fare  no  better  than  the  thief  on  the 
cross  who  died  without  baptism.  They  get  no  farther 
than  Paradise  the  first  day.  It  is  a  hard  religion.  This 
doctrine  is  cruelly  hard  upon  children  ;  as  her  doctrine 
that  money,  by  the  purchase  of  prayers  and  masses,  re- 
leases souls  from  Purgatory,  is  hard  upon  the  poor. 

So  much  for  the  difficulty  of  her  faith.  But  all  of 
that  is  not  so  hard ;  as  for  example,  her  doctrine  of  in- 
dulgences. It  is  never  hard  to  be  indulged.  There  is 
no  hardship,  but  very  great  convenience  for  a  delin- 
quent sinner  to  have  such  a  bank  to  draw  upon,  as  the 
accumulated  merits  of  the  saints  in  by-gone  ages,  who 
did  more  than  they  needed  for  their  own  salvation, 
having  loved  God  with  considerably  more  than  "  all 
the  heart,  and  soul,  and  strength,  and  mind !"  This 
doctrine  does  not  make  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
a  hard  one — neither  does  the  doctrine  of  venial  sins. 
You  know  they  hold  that  there  are  some  sins  whose 


118  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

wages  is  not  death.  They  are  excusable — mere  pec- 
cadillos. We  recognise  no  such  sins.  We  think  with 
St.  Paul,  that  "  cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  to  do  them." 

But  perhaps  when  the  Catholics  speak  of  their  re- 
ligion as  a  hard  one,  they  refer  not  so  much  to  its  faith 
as  to  its  practice.  It  is  what  they  have  to  do  that  is 
so  hard.  But  why  do  they  speak  of  it  as  hard  ?  It  looks 
as  if  it  was  a  task  to  them — as  if  they  do  not  find  their 
sweetest  and  purest  delight  in  it.  It  would  appear  as 
if  they  did  not  esteem  the  service  of  God  as  much  their 
privilege  as  their  duty.  One  would  suppose,  to  hear 
them  talk,  that  the  commandments  of  God  are  grievous. 
I  am  truly  sorry  for  them  that  Christ's  yoke,  which,  he 
says,  is  easy,  they  find  to  be  so  galling-  to  them.  We, 
Protestants,  never  think  of  speaking  of  our  religion  as 
hard.  "Wisdom's  ways"  we  find  to  be  "pleasant- 
ness, and  all  her  paths  peace."  Our  language  is :  "  O 
how  love  I  thy  law !  How  sweet  are  thy  words  unto 
my  taste  !  yea,  sweeter  than  honey  to  my  mouth !" 
But  it  seems  not  to  be  so  with  Catholics.  I  have  been 
struck  with  surprise  to  hear  even  the  most  devout  of 
them  speak  of  the  requirements  of  their  religion  as 
things  which  they  must  comply  with.  "  I  must,"  is 
the  language  which  they  use  in  reference  to  almost 
every  thing  of  a  religious  kind  that  they  do.  I  have 
thought  with  myself  how  it  is  possible  that  their  hearts 
can  be  in  their  religion,  if  they  esteem  it  such  a  hard- 
ship. How  will  heaven  be  able  to  make  them  happy, 
if  the  exercises  and  acts  on  earth,  most  akin  to  those 
of  heaven,  are  so  irksome  that  they  engage  in  them 
only  from  sheer  necessity  ? 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  119 

But  I  must  advert  to  some  of  the  hard  practices 
which  the  Catholic  religion  requires  of  her  votaries. 
There  is  that  practice  of  confessing  to  the  priest.  Is 
not  that  hard !  Truly  it  is.  I  think  I  should  find  it 
hard  to  tell  every  thing,  even  the  most  secret  thoughts, 
to  any  body  called  a  priest.  And  then  to  have  to  per- 
form whatever  penance  he  might  please  to  prescribe. 
Yes,  it  is  hard — so  hard,  and  so  absurd  too  that  God 
has  never  required  it  at  our  hands.  He  says  to  the 
sinner,  come  right  to  me  with  your  broken  heart,  and 
make  your  confession  to  me,  for  he  is  "  in  Christ  re- 
conciling the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their 
trespasses  unto  them." 

Again,  fasting  is  reckoned  among  the  hard  things 
of  the  Catholic  religion — and  indeed  it  is  hard  not  to 
eat  when  one  is  hungry.  But  that  is  not  their  idea  of 
fasting.  Their  idea  of  fasting  is  in  accordance  with 
what  St.  Paul  says  to  Timothy  in  his  prediction  con- 
cerning them,  an  "  abstaining  from  meats,"  or  "  what- 
soever is  sold  in  the  shambles."  Now  there  is  nothing 
so  very  hard  in  that  restriction.  He  must  be  very  dif- 
ficult who  cannot  satisfy  his  appetite  out  of  all  the  va- 
riety of  the  vegetable  kingdom,  when  he  has  more- 
over the  liberty  of  the  entire  fish  market. 

But  there  is  one  thing  about  the  Catholic  religion, 
in  view  of  which  I  suppose  I  must  admit  it  to  be  the 
hardest  religion.  It  belongs  strictly  neither  to  faith 
nor  practice.  You  will  guess  that  I  have  in  my  mind — 
Purgatory.  Now,  as  a  doctrine,  there  are  many  things 
about  it  hard  to  be  believed,  as,  for  example,  that  ma- 
terial fire  should  be  able  to  act  on  an  immaterial  spirit, 
and  thereby  purify  it  too.  But  hard  as  purgatory  is  to 
be  believed^  it  is  still  harder  to  be  suffered.  Yes,  it  is 


120  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

hard,  after  having  gone  through  the  whole  routine  of 
the  sacraments,  and  lived  long  a  good  Catholic,  then 
to  die,  and  go  into  an  intense  fire.  It  is  so  hard  that  I, 
for  my  part,  prefer  the  religion  of  poor  Lazarus,  whom 
the  angels  took  straight  to  heaven ;  and  of  the  penitent 
malefactor,  who  spent  a  part  of  the  day  on  which  he 
died,  in  Paradise.  By  the  way,  St.  Paul  could  not 
have  been  thinking  of  Purgatory  when  he  said,  "  to 
me  to  die  is  gain."  But  I  forget  that  he  lived  before 
the  time  of  the  Catholic  religion. 


32.    More  about  Penance. 

Let  us  hear  both  sides.  In  my  former  article  on  this 
subject,  I  objected  to  the  translation  doing  penance^ 
in  the  Douay  Bible.  But  have  the  Catholics  nothing 
to  say  in  justification  of  their  rendering?  I  suppose 
that  whatever  they  have  to  say  is  expressed  in  a  cer- 
tain note  on  Matthew,  3:2.  "  Do  penance,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  is  the  edifying  trans- 
lation of  the  passage.  Our  attention  is  then  directed 
to  this  note,  "agite  poenitentiam,  metanoeite,"  which 
word,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
holy  fathers,  does  not  only  signify  repentance  and 
amendment  of  life,  but  also  "  punishing  past  sins  by 
fasting  and  such  like  penitential  exercises."  This  is 
the  sage  note. 

Now  here  is  an  acknowledgment  that  the  ideas  of 
repentance  and  amendment  are  intended  in  the  ori- 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  121 

ginal  word.  Why  then  is  a  translation  of  it  adopted, 
which  excludes  both  repentance  and  amendment.  If 
the  original  includes  them,  yet  their  translation  does 
not.  A  man  may  do  penance,  and  yet  neither  repent 
nor  amend — neither  be  sorry  nor  better.  These  trans- 
lators must  have  thought  that  repentance  and  amend- 
ment, though  included  in  the  original  word,  were  of 
little  importance,  otherwise  they  would  not  have  sup- 
pressed them  in  their  translation.  They  must  have 
judged  them  too  insignificant  to  be  taken  notice  of  in 
their  standard  version  !  As  for  us  Protestants,  we 
think  that  to  be  sorry  and  to  reform,  are  very  impor- 
tant parts  of  repentance. 

But,  besides  repentance  and  amendment,  they  say 
the  original  word  signifies  "  punishing  past  sins,  by 
fasting,"  &c.  This  is  their  assertion.  Where  are 
their  proofs  ?  I  would  like  to  see  some  of  them,  for 
the  dictionaries  tell  us  another  story.  Well,  they  ap- 
peal to  the  Scriptures  and  the  fathers,  "  according  to 
the  use  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  holy  fathers."  Here 
are  two  authorities,  though  of  very  unequal  weight 
in  my  estimation.  I  wish  these  translators  had  said 
where  the  Scriptures  use  this  word  in  their  sense.  I 
suppose  they  would,  if  they  had  been  able.  The  truth 
is,  the  word  is  never  so  used.  It  does  not  include  this 
idea  of  theirs.  Punishing  !  Repentance  don't  mean 
punishing.  Punishing  past  sins !  This  is  no  very 
eligible  phrase.  It  is  quite  too  figurative  for  an  ex- 
planatory note.  And  punishing  them,  how?  By  fast- 
ing. How  does  fasting  punish  sin?  I  cannot  see 
how  any  fasting  punishes  sin;  but  I  am  sure  the  Cath- 
olic fasting  does  not.  Do  you  know  what  Catholics 
mean  by  fasting  ?  Not  abstaining  from  food.  No,  to 
11 


122  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

be  sure.  But  changing  their  kind  of  food.  Only  ab- 
stain from  meats ,  according  to  the  prediction,  1  Tim. 
4:  3,  and  you  may  eat  what  else  you  please.  Fasting, 
according  to  the  opinions  held  by  Catholics  in  the  re- 
gion of  country  where  I  live,  and  I  suppose  it  is  so 
elsewhere,  consists  in  reducing  one's  self  down  to  the 
low  diet  of  fish,  (after  all  their  kinds,)  eggs,  oysters, 
terrapins,  with  all  manner  of  vegetables,  and  every 
variety  of  desert  !  That  is  fasting,  because  there  is 
no  butchers'  meat  eaten.  You  may  eat  what  is  sold 
anywhere  else  but  in  the  shambles.  Now  I  cannot 
see  any  thing  very  punitive  in  such  fasting.  A  man's 
sin  must  be  exceedingly  sensitive  to  feel  the  infliction 
of  such  abstinence.  I  do  not  believe  that  sin  is  to  be 
starved  out  of  the  soul  in  this  way. 

It  is  well  enough  sometimes  to  try  the  value  of  an 
explanation  upon  a  passage  in  which  the  thing  ex- 
plained occurs,  as  for  example,  "  God  now  command- 
eth  all  men  every  where  to  punish  their  past  sins  by 
fasting  and  such  like  penitential  exercises."  How 
does  that  sound  ?  Do  you  really  think  that  it  is  what 
the  Lord  meant. 


33.    A  Fast-Day  Dinner. 

Some  plain,  honest  people  may  be  surprised  at  the 
heading  of  this  article,  because  it  implies  a  dinner  of 
some  sort  on  a  day  of  fasting,  whereas,  according  to 
their  old-fashioned  notions  there  should  be  no  dinner 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  123 

at  all  on  a  fast  day.  And  truly  fasting  did  formerly 
imply  partial,  at  least,  if  not  total  abstinence  from 
food  during  the  period  of  the  fast.  It  was  thought 
that  eating  to  the  full  was  incompatible  with  genuine 
fasting.  Indeed  it  was  considered  that  eating  at  all 
broke  a  fast.  I  suppose  no  one  doubts  that  Daniel, 
Nehemiah,  Ezra,  and  the  pious  Jews  in  general,  ab- 
stained entirely  from  food  on  their  days  of  fasting. 
Who  has  an  idea  that  they  ate  any  dinner  on  those 
days?  But  mind  has  marched  a  great  way  since 
those  men  flourished.  Whether  its  march  has  always 
been  forward,  I  leave  others  to  determine.  Now,  ac- 
cording to  the  views  which  prevail  in  that  church 
which  cannot  go  wrong,  and  which  don't  make  mis- 
takes even  when  she  contradicts  herself,  abstinence 
is  not  essential  to  a  fast  5  and  a  fast-day  dinner,  so 
far  from  being  no  dinner  at  all,  as  some  puritanical 
Christians  still  contend  it  should  be,  is  a  rare  repast — 
one  of  the  very  best  dinners  in  the  whole  week.  I 
ought  to  say  here  that  some  Protestants  have  imbibed 
this  doctrine  of  the  infallible  church,  and  very  com- 
placently practice  according  to  it.  We  have  a  great 
many  Protestants  among. us  who  do  not  protest  as 
thoroughly  or  as  strenuously  as  we  think  they  should. 
What  put  me  in  mind  of  this  subject  was  the  fol- 
lowing incident.  As  I  was  sitting  at  table  the  other 
day,  the  topic  of  conversation  was  a  very  delicate  pre- 
paration of  eggs.  I  took  no  particular  interest  in  it, 
until  one  of  the  company  remarked  that  when  she  re- 
sided in  the  family  of  Mr.  A.,  a  distinguished  Catholic, 
that  dish  was  always  a  part  of  their  fast-day  dinner. 
This  arrested  my  attention.  Fast-day  dinner!  ex- 
claimed I.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  dinner  on  a  fast-day  ? 


124  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

It  is  not  possible  they  have  a  dinner  at  Mr.  A.'s  on 
fast-days  !  Dinner  !  replied  the  person.  I  never  desire 
to  eat  a  better.  This  made  me  curious  to  enquire  what 
constituted  the  fast-day  dinner  at  Mr.  A.'s  table.  Well, 
said  she,  to  begin,  a  rock  fish  dressed  with  eggs  and 
butter,  (no  mean  affair  this  where  there  is  an  appe- 
tite,) eggs  prepared  in  two  ways,  and  oysters.  They 
dispense  with  vegetables  I  presume,  said  I.  O  no,  she 
rejoined  ;  and  to  this  I  readily  assented,  for  I  had  for- 
gotten myself  in  supposing  that  they  dispensed  with 
vegetables.  Timothy  does  not  prophecy  of  the  anti- 
christ that  he  shall  command  to  abstain  from  vegeta- 
bles, but  only  from  "meats,  which  God  hath  created 
to  be  received  with  thanksgiving."  Well,  surely,  said  I, 
they  have  no  desert  on  their  fast-days  ?  How  you  talk, 
said  she ;  they  have  the  very  best,  and  every  variety. 
And  do  they  call  that  a  fast-day  dinner?  and  do  they 
suppose  that  they  fast  when  they  eat  it?  Certain- 
ly, said  she.  Well,  I  suppose  it  is  because  they  eat 
very  sparingly  of  what  is  set  before  them.  You  are 
mistaken,  replied  my  informant,  quantity  has  nothing 
to  do  in  the  matter.  It  is  not  the  quantity  eaten  that 
constitutes  a  fast,  but  the  kind.  There  the  conversa- 
tion ended,  but  my  thoughts  proceeded  on.  And  this, 
thought  I,  is  fasting.  So  the  church  teaches,  and  mil- 
lions on  their  way  to  the  judgment  believe  it.  What 
dupes !  how  deceived  to  suppose  that  this  is  fasting. 
If  not  deceived  themselves,  what  insulters  of  God,  to 
endeavor  to  palm  it  off  on  him  as  fasting  !  A  change 
of  food  is  fasting !  To  eat  differently  on  one  day 
from  what  we  do  on  other  days,  is  to  keep  a  fast ! 
Admirable  doctrine ! 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  125 


34:.    The  Mass. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  the  phraseology  of  the  Ro- 
mish church  which  is  not  a  little  peculiar,  not  to  say 
outlandish.  The  Christian  reader  who  is  not  very 
familiar  with  other  authors  than  those  who  by  inspi- 
ration wrote  the  Bible,  does  not  know  what  to  make 
of  these  terms  when  he  comes  across  them  in  books 
professing  to  treat  of  Christianity.  "  The  mass,  the 
mass,"  he  repeats  to  himself,  "  what  is  that  ?"  He  has 
read  his  Bible  through  and  through,  but  he  has  found 
nothing  about  the  mass  there.  He  thinks  it  ought  to 
be  there,  if  it  is  any  part  of  Christianity.  Why  should 
apostolical  Christians  have  been  silent  on  a  subject 
on  which  those  who  claim  to  be  their  direct  descend- 
ants are  so  loquacious  ?  He  does  not  even  meet  in 
his  Bible  with  any  doctrine  or  rite  to  which  the  word 
'mass  seems  at  all  appropriate.  He  would  not  object 
to  the  word,  if  he  could  find  the  thing  there.  It  never 
occurs  to  him  that  by  the  mass  Catholics  can  mean 
the  transaction  recorded  by  Matthew  in  his  26th  chap- 
ter, and  by  three  other  sacred  writers,  and  which  we 
commonly  speak  of  as  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  But  that  is  what  they  mean  by  it.  Then, 
they  tell  us,  the  first  mass  was  said.  In  the  Douay 
Catechism  we  find  these  questions  and  answers: 
Q.  Who  said  the  first  mass  ?  A.  Jesus  Christ. 
Q.  When  did  he  say  it  ?  A.  At  his  last  supper.  Here 
it  is,  question  and  answer  for  it,  if  not  chapter  and 
verse.  The  Biblical  reader  will  please  to  bear  in 
mind,  whenever  hereafter  he  reads  the  narrative  of 
11* 


126  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

the  transaction,  that  the  writer  is  giving  an  account 
of  the  first  mass  that  was  ever  said  ! 

But  they  may  call  it  mass,  if  they  please,  and  they 
may  speak  of  Christ's  instituting  the  ordinance  as  his 
saying  mass.  Words  are  nothing,  though  it  is  cer- 
tainly best  that  they  should  be  well  chosen  and  fitly 
applied.  If  they  mean  by  their  mass  what  we  mean 
by  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  is  the  main  point.  But  the 
truth  is,  they  mean  by  it  as  different  a  thing  as  you 
can  well  imagine.  Just  hear  what  "  the  Christian's 
Guide"  says  on  the  subject:  "I  profess  likewise,  that 
in  the  mass  there  is  offered  to  God  a  true,  proper  and 
propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead." 
Christ  offered  it  first  when  he  said  mass,  and  every 
priest  now  offers  it  when  he  says  mass.  Well,  read- 
er, you  and  I  must  not  judge  rashly.  We  will  look 
again  at  the  account  given  of  the  matter  in  the  Bible, 
and  we  will  see  if  we  can  find  in  it  any  thing  of  the 
nature  of  a  sacrifice.  He  "took  bread  and  blessed, 
and  brake  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take, 
eat."  And  then  he  took  the  cup  and  gave  it.  Where 
is  any  sacrifice  here,  and  especially  where  is  any  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice  ?  Does  the  account  we  have  of 
sacrifices  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  accord  with  what  was  done  on  this  oc- 
casion ?  The  Catholics  say  that  when  Christ  perform- 
ed these  actions  with  the  bread  and  wine,  he  offered 
himself  to  God  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  How 
does  what  he  did,  bear  even  the  least  resemblance  to 
the  offering  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ?  There  was  no 
bloodshed — no  life  taken,  as  was  the  case  in  all  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifices  under  the  law,  and  in  the  sacrifice 
which  Christ  made  of  himself  on  the  cross,  and  which 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  127 

has  always,  by  Pagans,  as  well  as  the  disciples  of  the 
true  religion,  been  considered  as  essential  to  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice.  I  confess  there  was  something 
offered.  Bread  and  wine  were  offered.  These  might 
constitute  a  eucharistic  sacrifice,  but  never  a  propi- 
tiatory one.  If  things  of  this  kind  can  constitute  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice,  then  I  do  not  see  why  Cain,  who 
offered  "  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground,"  was  not  accepted 
equally  with  Abel  who  brought  to  the  Lord  "  of  the 
firstlings  of  his  flock."  But  whatever  was  offered,  it 
was  not  offered  to  God.  A  sacrifice,  to  be  a  sacrifice, 
must  be  offered  to  God,  as  even  the  quotation  from 
the  Christian's  guide  recognizes.  But  what  was  of- 
fered in  this  case  was  offered  to  the  disciples.  "Take, 
eat,"  he  said  to  them.  It  is  true  the  bread  and  wine 
were  offered  them  as  the  memorial  of  a  sacrifice  in 
which  the  body  of  Christ  was  to  be  broken  and  his 
blood  shed ;  but  the  memorial  of  a  sacrifice  is  not  a 
sacrifice.  The  emblematical  representation  of  a  thing 
is  not  the  thing  itself.  Plainly  there  was  no  sacrifice 
in  this  transaction. 

But  again :  if  Christ  in  the  eucharist  offered  him- 
self a  sacrifice  to  God,  as  they  affirm ;  and  afterwards, 
as  all  admit,  offered  himself  on  the  cross,  then  he  twice 
offered  himself;  and  if  so,  the  writer  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  was  under  a  great  mistake,  for  he  says, 
"  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many," 
"  we  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  once  for  all."  Heb.  9  :  28,  and  10  :  10. 
Here  is  a  contradiction.  Which  shall  we  believe? 
The  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  or  the  Catholic  church  ? 
If  Christ  really  offered  himself  in  the  eucharist — on 
the  tabley  as  Catholics  contend — there  was  no  need 


128  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

of  his  offering  himself  on  the  cross.  His  twice  offer- 
ing himself  was  quite  unnecessary.  If  "  in  the  mass 
there  is  offered  to  God  a  true,  proper,  and  propitia- 
tory sacrifice,"  what  need  of  another  on  Calvary? 
One  "  true,  proper,  and  propitiatory  sacrifice "  is  all 
that  is  wanted. 

But  if  the  Catholic  doctrine  be  true,  Christ  has  been 
offered  not  twice  only,  but  innumerable  times.  In 
every  mass  that  ever  has  been  said,  he  has  been  of- 
fered. He  is  offered  to-day  as  really  as  he  was  on 
the  day  of  his  crucifixion.  He  is  offered  on  earth 
while  he  is  interceding  in  heaven.  Both  parts  of  the 
priest's  office,  the  propitiation  and  the  intercession, 
are  going  on  at  the  same  time — a  thing  unheard  of  in 
the  history  of  the  priesthood !  Did  the  Jewish  high 
priest,  the  type  of  Jesus,  our  great  high  priest,  exe- 
cute both  parts  of  his  office  at  the  same  moment? 
Moreover,  according  to  this  doctrine,  there  was  no 
propriety  in  Christ's  saying  on  the  cross,  "  It  is  finish- 
ed," for  it  is  not  finished  yet,  nor  will  it  be,  till  the 
last  mass  is  said.  It  depends  on  the  will  of  the  priest 
when  it  shall  be  finished.  This  to  me  is  shocking 
doctrine.  What !  Can  a  priest  cause  Christ  to  be  of- 
fered just  when  he  pleases  ?  My  mind  recoils  from 
the  conviction.  There  is  what  by  a  figure  is  called 
the  "  crucifying  of  the  Son  of  God  afresh,"  but  this 
appears  like  doing  it  literally. 

I  know  the  Catholics  make  a  distinction  here.  They 
say,  and  let  them  be  heard,  that  Christ  in  the  eucha- 
rist  is  offered  in  an  unbloody  manner,  while  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  cross  was  bloody.  And  this  distinction 
they  lay  great  stress  on.  But  I  wonder  they  see  not 
the  consequence  of  this  explanation — that  if  the  sacri- 


or  tBE 

''KFIVEHSIT* 

THOUGHTS    ON   POPtteV.  129 

Vv   P/ 

fice  is  unbloody,  it  cannot  be  propitiatory,  which,  ne- 
vertheless, they  say  it  is.  Unbloody,  yet  propitiatory ! 
Who  ever  heard  of  an  unbloody  propitiatory  sacrifice? 
What  Jew  ?  What  Pagan  ?  A  propitiatory  sacrifice, 
be  it  remembered,  is  a  sacrifice  for  atonement — a  sa- 
crifice with  a  view  to  the  remission  of  sins.  This  all 
acknowledge.  But  "  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no 
remission,"  Heb.  9  :  22 — consequently  no  propitiatory 
sacrifice.  Now  here  is  no  shedding  of  blood,  they 
say ;  yet  remission  is  effected  by  it !  It  is  a  propitia- 
tory sacrifice,  notwithstanding.  Who  does  not  see 
the  contradiction?  They  must  take  back  their  admis- 
sion that  it  is  unbloody,  or  else  acknowledge  that  it  is 
not  propitiatory.  They  cannot  hold  to  both  without 
self-contradiction. 

The  reader  sees  that  this  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
church  subverts  that  great  principle  in  the  divine  go- 
vernment, that  "  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  re- 
mission"— a  principle  not  merely  inscribed  on  the 
page  of  the  Bible,  but  written  with  the  finger  of  God 
on  the  mind  of  man.  The  conscience  of  the  veriest 
pagan  reads  it  there  ?  If  a  sacrifice  may  be  propitia- 
tory, though  unbloody,  never  a  victim  that  bled  under 
the  Jewish  economy,  need  have  been  slain ;  and 
Christ  need  not  have  died !  The  doctrine  of  the  mass 
therefore,  that  a  sacrifice  may  be  propitiatory,  though 
bloodless,  undermines  the  Gospel. 

One  inference  more  from  their  doctrine  I  must  not 
forget.  It  is  this.  If  in  the  eucharist  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  is  offered,  then  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  may  be 
effected  by  mere  action.  No  passion  whatever  is  ne- 
cessary to  it — expiation  is  made  without  any  suffer- 
ing— made  by  a  mere  doing  !  Is  this  truth  ?  Can  an- 


130  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

tiquity  be  pleaded  for  this  doctrine  ?  Can  that  be  the 
oldest  religion  which  cherishes  and  teaches  it? 

There  is  no  sacrifice  in  what  is  improperly  called 
the  mass — least  of  all  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  The 
doctrine  is  error — error  in  a  capital  particular — on  a 
fundamental  point — gross  and  most  pernicious  error. 
What  then  shall  we  think  of  a  church  which  not  only 
inculcates  it,  but  gives  it  the  greatest  prominence,  and 
makes  the  service  connected  with  it  the  main  thing  in 
its  religion  ?  I  have  my  thoughts.  The  reader  must 
have  his. 

I  reserve  some  things  on  the  mass  for  a  future  com- 
munication. 


35.    More  about  the  Mags. 

But  before  I  proceed  to  the  Mass,  I  wish  to  add  a 
word  about  relics.  In  my  communication  on  that 
subject,  I  referred  to  Bellarmine  as  quoting  from  the 
Old  Testament  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  relics. 
Since  then,  I  have  recollected  a  fact  which  makes  me 
wonder  that  a  Catholic  should  ever  appeal  to  the  Old 
Testament  for  authority  in  favor  of  relics.  The  reader 
probably  knows  that  no  relics  are  more  common  among 
the  Catholics,  and  none  more  highly  valued  than  the 
bones  of  deceased  saints  and  martyrs.  Now,  if  Num- 
bers, 19 :  16,  be  consulted,  it  will  be  found  that  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  if  a  person  so  much  as  touch- 
ed the  bone  of  a  man,  he  was  ceremonially  unclean 
for  seven  days,  and  had  to  submit  to  a  tedious  pro- 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  131 

cess  of  purification  before  he  could  be  restored  to  the 
privileges  of  God's  worship,  from  which  he  had  been 
1  temporarily  excluded  in  consequence  of  that  contact. 
This  being  the  case,  it  is  pretty  certain  that  the  bones 
of  the  dead  were  not  handled  and  cherished  as  relics 
by  the  pious  Jews,  as  they  are  by  our  Catholics.  There 
was  nothing  which  the  Israelite  more  carefully  avoid- 
ed than  some  of  those  very  things  which  are  now 
carried  about  and  shown  as  relics.  Therefore,  I  say, 
it  is  not  best  to  go  so  far  back  as  the  Old  Testament 
for  testimony  in  favor  of  relics. 

Now  let  us  to  the  mass  again.  It  is  known,  I  sup- 
pose, that  they  quote  Scripture  in  favor  of  the  mass. 
That  circumstance  however  proves  nothing.  Scrip- 
ture is  not  always  aptly  quoted.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered by  those  who  are  prone  to  think  it  in  favor  of  a 
doctrine,  that  its  abettors  appeal  to  the  Bible  in  its 
support,  that  Scripture  was  once  quoted  by  a  celebra- 
ted character  to  prove  the  propriety  of  the  Son  of 
God  casting  himself  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the 
temple.  It  is  always  advisable  to  refer  to  the  quota- 
tion, and  see  for  ourselves  if  it  makes  in  favor  of  the 
doctrine.  The  principal  passage  which  the  Catholics 
adduce  in  support  of  their  mass,  is  that  concerning 
Melchizedek,  in  the  14th  chapter  of  Genesis.  Abra- 
ham and  his  armed  servants  were  on  their  return  from 
"  the  slaughter  of  the  kings,"  when  they  were  met  by 
this  distinguished  personage.  The  record  of  the  oc- 
currence is  as  follows  :  "  And  Melchizedek,  king  of 
Salem,  brought  forth  bread  and  wine ;  and  he  was  the 
priest  of  the  Most  High  God.  And  he  blessed  him.... 
And  he  gave  him  tithes  of  all."  Here  is  the  text, 
reader.  Now  the  doctrine  deduced  from  it  is  this  that 


132  THOUGHTS  ON   POPERY. 

"  in  the  mass  there  is  offered  to  God  a  true,  proper,  and 
propitiatory  sacrifice   for   the   living  and  the  dead." 

Q.  E.  D. 

Do  not  smile  at  the  incongruity  of  the  text  and  the 
doctrine — the  distance  of  the  conclusion  from  the 
premises.  Sacred  things  are  to  be  handled  seriously. 
I  know  the  reader  only  smiles  at  the  logic  of  the 
thing.  But  he  should  remember  that  they  do  the  best 
thing  they  can,  when  they  quote  this  passage  in  favor 
of  their  mass.  If  there  were  other  Scripture  more 
appropriate  and  to  the  .point  than  this,  they  would 
quote  it.  I  have  no  doubt  the  intelligent  Catholic  is 
ashamed  of  this  reference  to  the  Bible  in  behalf  of  the 
mass.  He  sees  that  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  case, 
It  is  not  to  compare  in  point  of  appropriateness  with 
the  tempter's  quotation  referred  to  above. 

Just  observe  first,  that  it  was  as  king,  not  as  priest, 
that  Melchizedek  brought  forth  the  bread  and  wine. 
"  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem,  brought  forth  bread 
and  wine."  It  was  an  act  of  royal  bounty — an  exer- 
cise of  kingly  hospitality.  True,  it  is  said  immedi- 
ately after,  that  he  was  a  priest  as  well  as  a  king ;  but 
that  is  said  in  reference  to  what  follows,  not  what 
precedes.  "  And  he  was  priest  of  the  Most  High 
God.  And  he  blessed  him."  In  his  capacity  of  king 
he  brought  forth  bread  and  wine.  In  the  exercise  of 
his  priestly  office  he  blessed  Abraham.  To  bless,  we 
know,  was  one  part  of  the  priest's  office.  Numbers,  6 : 
23.  His  bringing  forth  bread  and  wine  had  nothing  to 
do  with  his  being  a  priest.  What  proves  this  view  of 
the  passage  correct  is,  the  manner  in  which  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  refers  to  it.  In  his 
seventh  chapter  he  introduces  Melchizedek  as  a  priest. 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  133 

and  in  that  character  as  the  model  of  Christ's  priest- 
hood ;  and  he  speaks  of  his  blessing  Abraham,  but 
says  not  a  word  about  his  bringing  forth  bread  and 
wine.  Why  is  not  this  circumstance — this  most  ma- 
terial circumstance,  according  to  the  Catholic  notion, 
alluded  to,  if  in  it  he  acted  as  a  priest  and  as  the  sa- 
cerdotal type  of  Christ  ?  Why  does  the  apostle,  when 
speaking  of  him  as  a  priest,  mention  only  his  benedic- 
tion of  Abraham?  Now  if,  as  I  think  it  is  manifest, 
he  brought  forth  bread  and  wine  not  in  the  exercise  of 
his  office  as  priest,  it  overturns  the  Catholic  argument 
at  once. 

But  secondly,  consider  what  in  all  human  proba- 
bility was  the  object  of  the  bread  and  wine.  Would 
any  one,  in  reading  the  passage,  suppose  it  could  have 
been  for  any  other  purpose  than  refreshment  ?  What 
an  idea  !  to  come  out  to  a  people  returning  famished 
and  weary  from  the  toils  of  conflict,  with  a  sacrifice — 
a  propitiatory  sacrifice  too — the  mass — with  bread  and 
wine,  not  to  be  eaten  and  drank,  but  to  be  offered  to 
God  !  What  more  unnatural  than  such  a  supposi- 
tion !  On  the  other  hand  what  more  natural,  and 
proper  than  to  bring  forth,  for  those  fatigued  soldiers, 
"  wine  that  maketh  glad  the  heart  of  man,  and  bread 
which  strengtheneth  man's  heart,"  to  refresh  them  ? 
It  was  just  what,  under  the  circumstances,  they  needed. 

In  further  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  view  of 
the  passage,  we  find  that  Abraham  recognized  the 
priesthood  of  Melchizedek,  not  by  receiving  bread 
and  wine  at  his  hands,  but  by  giving  him  tithes. 
"  And  he  gave  him  tithes  of  all." 

We  see  then  there  is  no  proof  of  any  sacrifice  in 
this  transaction.     There  was  nothing  offered  to  God. 
12 


134  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.       , 

What  was  offered,  was  to  Abraham  and  his  company. 
But  if  the  offering  was  to  God,  it  could  but  constitute 
an  eucharistic  sacrifice.  Bread  and  wine  might  be 
offered  as  thank-offerings.  But  a  bloodless  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  was  unknown  under  the  Old  Testament. 
Whatever  view  we  take  of  the  passage,  it  cannot 
make  for  the  mass.  That  which  was  offered  was 
only  bread  and  wine.  The  Catholics  do  not  pretend 
that  they  were  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  Melchizedek  lived  nearly  2000  years  before 
Christ  had  a  body.  How  could  transubstantiation 
take  place  so  long  before  the  incarnation  ?  But  if  sim- 
ple bread  and  wine  were  offered,  then  the  act  of  Mel- 
chizedek, if  any  thing  more  than  an  example  of 
hospitality,  was  rather  the  model  of  the  Protestants' 
Lord's  Supper,  than  the  Roman  Catholic's  mass. — 
And  here  it  may  be  observed,  that  Melchizedek  does 
not  seem  to  have  denied  the  cup  to  the  laity,  as  later 
priests  have  done.  O  no,  it  was  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, in  the  15th  century,  that  established  that  custom. 
But  Catholics  have  another  argument  from  Scrip- 
ture in  favor  of  their  mass.  It  is  derived  from  the 
perpetuity  of  Christ's  priesthood.  If,  say  they,  Christ 
is  a  priest  forever,  and  "  every  high  priest  is  ordained 
to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices,"  there  must  be  a  perpetual 
sacrifice,  else  he  would  be  a  priest  without  exercising 
priestly  functions.  But  do  they  not  see  that  this  is  to 
suppose  Christ  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  and 
not  after  that  of  Melchizedek  ?  It  is  true  the  Aaronic 
priests  offered  sacrifice  during  the  whole  term  of  their 
priesthood.  They  stood  "  daily  ministering,  and  offer- 
ing oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices."  But  what  is  said 
of  Christ?  He  "needeth  not  daily,  as  those  high 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  135 

priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice for  this   he  did  once, 

when  he  offered  up  himself."  And  again:  "But 
this  man,  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins, 
forever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God."  Yet  the 
Catholics  say  he  needeth  daily  to  offer  up  sacrifice, 
and  that  he,  as  well  as  the  Aaronic  priests,  offers  of- 
tentimes the  same  sacrifices !  They  make  Christ  to 
resemble  the  Jewish  priests  in  those  very  particulars 
in  which  the  apostle  says  he  stands  in  contrast  to 
them! 

As  to  Christ's  being  a  priest  forever,  if  that  means 
any  thing  more  than  is  expressed  in  Heb.  7  :  24, 
where  he  is  said  to  have  "an  unchangeable  priest- 
hood," that  is,  a  priesthood  that  passes  not  from  one 
to  another,  as  did  the  Aaronic,  it  is  explained  in  the 
succeeding  verse,  where  it  is  said  that  "  he  ever  liveth 
to  make  intercession."  He  is  a  priest  forever,  because 
he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession.  It  is  not  at  all 
necessary  that  he  should  ever  live  to  offer  sacrifice,  in 
order  to  his  being  a  priest  forever.  Intercession  is 
as  much  a  part  of  the  priest's  office  as  sacrifice.  And 
here  I  would  ask  whether  the  Jewish  high-priest  was 
not  as  much  a  priest  when  he  went  into  the  most  holy 
place  to  sprinkle  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  and  to  burn 
incense,  as  when,  before  he  entered,  he  was  engaged 
in  offering  the  sacrifice  ?  Undoubtedly  he  was.  He 
offered  no  sacrifice  while  he  was  in  the  holy  place. 
He  went  in  for  another  purpose  altogether.  So  Christ, 
the  great  antitype,  has  entered  "not  into  the  holy 
places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the 
true ;  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the 
presence  of  God  for  us."  And  there  he  remains.  He 
has  never  come  out.  He  had  no  need  to  come  out  to 


136  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

offer  another  sacrifice,  as  the  Jewish  high-priest  had. 
"  By  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  them  that 
are  sanctified."  "Were  another  sacrifice  necessary,  he 
would  return  in  person  to  earth  to  offer  it ;  nor  would 
it  be  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,"  for  the 
apostle  argues,  in  Heb.  9 :  25.  26,  that  he  must  suffer 
as  often  as  he  offers  himself — that  he  cannot  be  offered 
without  suffering.  Yet  the  Douay  Catechism  says 
he  "continues  daily  to  offer  himself."  He  is  sacri- 
ficing, according  to  them,  while  he  is  interceding — 
sacrificing  in  the  place  appropriated  to  intercession, 
and  offering  himself  without  suffering  !  The  Bible 
tells  us,  "  Christ  was  once  offered,"  but  that  "  he  ever 
liveth  to  make  intercession."  It  makes  the  perpetuity 
of  his  priesthood  to  consist  in  his  intercession.  The 
Catholic  doctrine,  on  the  other  hand,  teaches  us  that 
he  is  continually  offered,  and  therefore  a  priest  for- 
ever. And  yet  they  appeal  to  the  Bible  in  proof  of 
their  doctrine ! 


36.     The    Host. 

Here  is  another  of  the  peculiar  terms  of  the  Cath- 
olic religion.  Protestants  commonly  use  the  word  to 
signify  an  army,  or  a  great  multitude.  But  Catholics 
mean  by  it  one  thing.  It  is  the  name  they  give  to  the 
consecrated  wafer  in  the  Eucharist.  Wafer !  What 
has  a  wafer  to  do  with  the  Eucharist?  We  read  that 
our  Saviour  took  bread  and  blessed,  and  break,  and 
gave  it  to  his  disciples  j  but  we  read  nothing  about 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  137 

any  wafer.  If  by  wafer  the  same  thing  is  meant, 
which  we  mean  by  bread,  yet  why  this  change  of 
names  ?  Why  not  call  it  what  Christ  called  it  ?  Why 
seek  to  improve  upon  things  as  they  were  left  by  him  ? 

When  the  wafer,  the  thin  piece  of  bread,  is  conse- 
crated; that  is,  when  a  blessing  has  been  invoked,  and 
thanks  have  been  given,  for  that  is  all  that  Christ 
did,  (the  same  precisely  which  he  did  when  he  fed  the 
multitudes ;  in  which  case  not  even  Catholics  contend 
that  there  was  any  transubstantiation  of  the  bread 
into  another  substance ;  and  if  no  such  effect  was  pro- 
duced on  that  bread  by  the  blessing  and  thanksgiv- 
ing, how  should  the  same  produce  such  an  effect  on 
the  bread  of  the  sacrament?)  then  it  is  no  longer 
called  a  wafer.  It  is  true,  St.  Paul  calls  it  the  same 
afterwards  that  he  called  it  before.  But  not  so  the 
Catholics.  Now  they  call  it  the  host,  a  word  derived 
from  the  Latin  hostia,  signifying  victim,  or  sacrifice. 

But  why  change  its  name  ?  And  above  all,  why  give 
it  so  different  a  name  ?  One  minute  to  call  a  thing  a 
wafer,  and  the  next  a  victim,  a  sacrifice  !  and  when 
nothing  but  a  prayer  has  intervened.  Has  it  become 
so  different  a  thing  that  it  deserves  so  different  a 
name  ?  I  know  the  Catholics  say  a  great  change  has 
taken  place  in  its  nature,  and  therefore  it  ought  to 
have  a  new  name.  Well,  I  am  open  to  conviction. 
When  a  great  change  has  taken  place  in  any  thing, 
such  a  change  that  the  original  substance  of  the  thing 
has  totally  departed,  which  is  the  greatest  change 
any  thing  can  undergo,  it  commonly  appears  to  the 
senses  different  from  what  it  did  before.  But  the 
wafer  and  the  host  look  exactly  alike,  and  they  smell 
alike,  and  taste  and  feel  precisely  alike.  The  form 
12  * 


138  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

is  the  same  it  was  before  ;  and  by  every  test  by  which 
the  substance  can  be  examined,  it  is  found  to  be  the 
same.  Yet  they  say  the  two  things  are  as  unlike  as 
bread,  and  the  body,  soul  and  divinity  of  Christ !  And 
this  on  pain  of  perdition  must  be  believed,  though  the 
senses  all  exclaim  against  it ;  and  reason,  that  calm 
faculty,  almost  getting  into  a  passion  with  the  absur- 
dity of  the  doctrine,  cries  out  against  it ;  and  though 
all  experience  be  against  it.  And  in  favor  of  it,  there 
is  what?  Why,  Christ  said  "This  is  my  body," 
speaking  as  Paul  did  when  he  said  "  and  that  rock 
was  Christ ;"  and  as  he  himself  did,  when  he  said 
"I  am  the  door."  Did  any  one  ever  contend  that 
Christ  was  literally  a  door  or  a  rock  ?  Oh  no.  Why 
then  is  it  contended  that  the  bread  was  literally  his 
body  ?  Is  it  so  said  ?  And  are  not  the  other  things  also 
so  said?  It  is  strange  the  Catholics  should  contend 
for  a  literal  interpretation  in  the  first  case,  while  they 
will  not  allow  it  in  the  other  cases. 

But  if  they  contend  for  a  strictly  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  "  this  is  my  body,"  why  do  they  not  abide  by 
such  an  interpretation?  Why  do  they  say,  as  in  the 
Christian's  Guide,  page  14,  that  "in  the  most  holy 
sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  there  is  truly,  really, 
and  substantially,  the  body  and  blood,  together  with 
the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?"  If 
Christ  says  it  is  his  body,  he  does  not  say  it  is  his  soul 
and  divinity.  Where  do  they  get  that  from  ?  They 
say  it  is  his  body,  because  he  says  it  is.  But  why  do 
they  say  it  is  his  soul  and  Divinity  also,  when  he  does 
not  say  so?  You  see  they  do  not  interpret  the  pas- 
sage literally,  after  all. 

But  what  do  the  Catholics  do  with  this  host?  Prin- 
cipally two  things. 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  139 

1.  They  adore  it.     The  Bible  says  "Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve."     But  the  Catholics  worship  the  host.     Yes, 
but  is  not  Christ  to  be  worshiped,  and  do  they  not 
hold  that  the  host  is  Christ  ?     Suppose  they  do  hold 
so.     Does  it  follow  that  every  thing  is  as  they  hold  it 
to  be  ?     And  if  in  this  case  the  fact  be  different  from 
what  they  hold  it  to  be,  is  not  their  worship  idolatry, 
whatever  they  may  verily  think  ?  Paul  verily  thought 
that  he  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary  to  the  name 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.     But  did  his  verily  thinking  it 
was  his  duty,  make  it  so,  or  exculpate  him  ?  No,  he 
ought  to  have  been  better  informed.     And  Catholics 
ought  to  be  better  informed  than  to  suppose  that  the 
host  is  Christ — a  wafer,  God — a  bit  of  bread,  not  only 
the  body,  but  the  very  soul   and  divinity  of  Christ ! 
I  say  they  ought  to  know  better.     And  if  they  do  not, 
they  must  take  the  consequences  of  such  ignorance. 

2.  The  other  thing  which  they  do  with  the  host  is 
to  eat  it.     This  is  all  very  well  on  our  theory.     It  is 
bread  ;  and  what  is  bread  for  but  to  be  eaten.     Christ 
tells  us  to  put  it  to  this  use.    He  says  "  Take,  eat." 
But  on  their  supposition  that  it  is  bread  no  longer,  it 
is  no  longer  proper  to  be  eaten.     Its  nature  being  so 
changed,  there  ought  to  be  a  corresponding  change  in 
its  use.     If  it  is  to  be  adored,  it  is  not  to  be  devoured. 
Common  sense  teaches  this.     These  two  uses  of  it, 
adoring  it  and  eating  it,  are  incongruous  to  each  other. 
One  of  them  at  least  ought  to  be  dispensed  with.     If 
they  continue  to  eat  it,  they  ought  to  give  up  adoring 
it.     But  if  they  must  have  it  as  an  object  of  worship, 
they  should  cease  to  use  it  as  an  article  of  food.    Any 
body  can  tell  you  that  you  ought  not  to  eat  what  you 


140  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

worship.  Cicero  thought  such  a  thing  could  not  be. 
In  his  work  on  Theology,  he  asks  "  Was  any  man 
ever  so  mad  as  to  take  that  which  he  feeds  upon  for  a 
god  ?"  But  Cicero  did  not  live  late  enough,  else  he 
could  not  have  asked  that  question.  Papal  Rome  has 
far  outdone  Pagan  Rome. 

If  I  believed  in  transubstantiation,  I  would  never 
receive  the  Eucharist.  I  know  that  I  must  spiritu- 
ally eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  I 
may  have  life  in  me,  that  is,  I  must  by  meditation  and 
faith,  contemplate  and  appropriate  his  sacrifice ;  but 
I  could  never  literally  eat  what  I  believed  to  be  my 
divine  Saviour.  What,  take  him  actually  between 
my  teeth  !  chew  and  swallow  what  I  had  just  before 
worshiped,  and  adored !  Let  not  the  language  be  ob- 
jected to.  It  is  unavoidable.  Rather  let  horror  be 
felt  at  the  thing.  I  would  not  speak  lightly  of  sacred 
things,  nor  untenderly  of  the  opinions  of  others ;  but 
the  idea  of  adoring  and  eating  the  same  object  is 
shocking  to  me.  Some  readers  will  perhaps  say  that 
I  must  misrepresent  the  Catholics — that  it  is  impos- 
sible they  should  believe  so.  Let  such  convict  me  of 
misrepresentation,  if  they  can,  and  I  will  take  the  first 
opportunity  of  retracting. 


37.      Priests. 


Where  are  we  ?  Under  what  dispensation  are  we 
living  ?  One  would  suppose,  from  hearing  so  much 
said  among  a  certain  class  of  people  about  priests^ 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  141 

and  their  offering  sacrifice,  that  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation — the  dispensation  of  types  and  shadows 
— was  still  in  force :  and  that  the  Messiah,  the  sub- 
stance and  antitype,  was  yet  to  come.  Priests  were 
a  sacred  order  of  men  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
and  sacrifice  constituted  an  important  part  of  divine 
service.  But,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  there 
is  no  order  of  priests,  neither  any  literal  sacrifices 
offered.  We  have,  indeed,  under  this  dispensation,  a 
great  High  Priest,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  who,  hav- 
ing once  offered  himself  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  has 
passed  into  the  heavens  for  us,  where  he  ever  lives  to 
make  intercession;  and  he  makes  all  his  disciples, 
in  a  sense,  both  "  kings  and  priests  unto  God  " — John 
1:6;  even  as  also  Peter,  who  is  prime  authority  with 
us  all,  testifies.  When  addressing  the  Christians  to 
whom  he  wrote,  he  says:  "Ye  are  a  holy  priesthood, 
to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices."  1  Pet.  2 :  5.  This 
priesthood,  which  Peter  recognizes,  is  very  different 
from  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood.  All  Chris- 
tians share  equally  in  the  New  Testament  priest- 
hood, and  these  priests  are  set  apart  to  offer  up 
spiritual  sacrifices,  or  as  it  is  said,  v.  9,  that  they 
"should  show  forth  the  praises"  of  God.  This  is 
not  the  object  of  the  Roman  priesthood,  neither  are 
its  functions  performed  by  all  the  faithful. 

The  truth  is,  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood,  that 
large  and  influential  body  of  ecclesiastics,  has  no 
more  warrant  and  authority  for  its  existence  from 
Christ,  than  it  has  from  Mohammed.  There  is  no 
more  in  the  Bible  in  favor  of  such  an  order,  than 
there  is  in  the  Koran,  and  perhaps  not  as  much. 
Christ  instituted  no  such  office — authorized  no  such 


142  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

characters  in  his  church.  "  He  gave  some,  apostles ; 
and  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and 
some,  pastors  and  teachers ;"  but  he  gave  none 
priests.  And  these  he  gave  or  appointed  "for  the 
perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
for  the  edifying  of  the  hody  of  Christ."  not  for  saying 
mass,  offering  sacrifice,  burning  incense,  hearing 
confessions,  and  the  like  of  those  things.  Christ  ap- 
pointed no  officer  to  perform  such  functions  as  these. 
I  have  quoted  from  Eph.  4:  11,  12.  In  1  Cor.  12  :  28, 
we  have  another  enumeration  of  the  officers  which 
God  has  set  in  the  church,  but  there  is  not  a  word 
about  priests.  They  are  a  class  of  persons  not  at  all 
needed  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  great 
High  Priest  of  our  profession  answers  every  purpose. 
He  has  offered  the  sacrifice  which  is  efficacious  to 
put  away  sin — has  shed  a  blood  which  cleanseth  from 
all  sin ;  and  he  ever  liveth  to  be  our  Advocate  with 
the  Father.  Neither  for  propitiation,  nor  for  inter- 
cession, need  we  any  other  priest.  Other  priests  are 
quite  out  of  place  since  he  has  come. 

If  Christ  instituted  an  order  of  priests,  why  do  we 
not  read  any  thing  about  them  in  that  choice  piece  of 
ecclesiastical  history,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?  It  is 
very  strange.  We  read  about  Jewish  priests  in  the 
Acts,  and  mention  is  made  of  the  priests  of  Jupiter, 
but  not  a  word  do  we  hear  of  any  Christian  priests. 
Who  were  they?  What  were  their  names?  Ste- 
phen was  a  deacon ;  Philip  was  an  evangelist ;  Paul 
was  an  apostle ;  Peter  was  an  elder,  and  there  were 
many  who  were  addressed  as  bishops.  But  who  was 
a  priest  ?  If  Paul  was,  why  does  he  not  sometimes 
call  himself  so  in  the  introduction  of  his  Epistles  1 


^  THOUGHTS   ON  POPERV.  143 

Was  he  ashamed  of  the  office  ?  Peter  says  he  was 
an  elder  or  presbyter,  but  gives  no  hint  of  his  having 
been  a  priest.  He  seems  to  have  had  no  idea  of  his 
being  a  priest  in  any  other  sense  than  as  being  one  of 
that  "  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices," 
which  all  true  believers  compose. 

If  the  priesthood  be  a  Christian  order  of  men,  why 
does  Paul,  in  writing  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  take  no 
notice  of  it  ?  He  gives  the  qualifications  of  bishops 
and  deacons,  but  says  nothing  about  those  of  priests. 
Were  they  to  have  no  qualifications  ?  Must  a  bishop 
be  "blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant, 
sober,  apt  to  teach,"  &c.  and  might  a  priest  be  any 
thing  he  pleased  in  these  respects?  Might  any  body 
be  a  priest  ?  If  not,  the  silence  of  the  apostle  is  de- 
cisive. Any  one  may  see  now  why  the  Catholic 
priests  do  not  like  the  Bible.  Who  likes  to  be  treat- 
ed by  book  or  man  with  silent  contempt?  The 
priests  will  never  forgive  the  evangelists  and  apos- 
tles for  having  passed  them  by  in  the  way  they  have 
done.  Never.  And  they  will  never  let  their  people 
have  the  genuine  Bible.  If  they  do,  they  will  lose 
the  people. 

I  suppose  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  that  if 
Catholics  meant  no  more  by  a  priest,  than  some  of  our 
Protestant  brethren  mean  by  the  word,  viz.  a  presby- 
ter, of  which  priest,  as  used  by  them,  is  but  an  abbre- 
viation, there  could  have  been  no  occasion  for  this 
article.  But  they  mean  by  a  priest,  a  real  sacerdotal 
character,  as  much  as  the  priest  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was — one  who  literally  offers  sacrifice.  They 
pretend  that  their  priests  offer  sacrifice  now — that 
whenever  they  perform  mass,  a  true,  proper,  and 


144  THOUGHTS  ON  POPERY. 

propitiatory  sacrifice,  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  is 
offered  by  them.  And  if  you  ask  them  what  they 
offer,  they  tell  you  they  offer  Christ — that,  under 
their  hands,  he  becomes  again,  and  as  often  as  they 
choose  to  make  him  so,  a  propitiatory  sacrifice — that 
he  is  as  really  offered  'by  them  in  their  missal  ser- 
vice, as  he  was  by  himself  on  Calvary,  only  now  he 
is  offered  in  an  unbloody  manner !  This  is  what  their 
priests  do.  A  priest  must  have  somewhat  to  offer. 
He  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices.  Now, 
the  Catholic  priest,  finding  nothing  else  to  offer,  pre- 
tends to  re-offer  Christ.  For  all  this — this  priest- 
hood, and  this  sacrifice — every  one  knows  there  is  no 
more  authority  in  the  Bible  than  there  is  for  the 
Hindoo  Suttee — the  burning  of  widows. 


38.    The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy. 

This  is  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine ;  but  is  it  Bi- 
ble doctrine  ?  I  believe,  however,  that  the  Catholics 
say  it  is  no  part  of  doctrine,  but  of  discipline.  This 
is  a  sorry  evasion.  It  amounts  to  a  confession  that 
some  of  their  ecclesiastical  practices  have  no  warrant 
in  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  saying  that  it  is  a  part  of 
their  discipline  that  their  clergy  do  not  marry,  but  no 
part  of  their  doctrine  that  they  should  not. 

But  let  us  see  how  this  doctrine  or  discipline,  or  by 
whatever  name  it  may  be  called,  tallies  with  the 
Scriptures ;  and  as  we  proceed,  we  shall  see  why  the 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  145 

Catholics  are  unwilling  that  the  people  should  read 
the  Bible.  We  shall  see  what  a  world  of  trouble  it 
would  occasion  the  priests,  were  they  to  be  in  the  ha- 
bit of  reading  it.  Suppose,  for  example,  an  intelli- 
gent Catholic  to  take  up  Paul's  first  epistle  to  Timo- 
thy for  perusal.  Well,  he  reads  along  until  he  comes 
to  the  third  chapter,  where  he  finds  Paul  telling  Tim- 
othy what  a  bishop  must  be.  He  must  be  this  and 
that,  and,  among  other  things,  "  the  husband  of  one 
wife."  The  reader  is  shocked.  "  Why,  what  does 
this  mean  ?  Our  priests  tell  us  that  a  bishop  must  not 
marry  at  all.  Our  church  prohibits  all  her  clergy  from 
marrying.  Which  is  right,  our  priests  and  church, 
or  St.  Paul  ?"  He  concludes  to  read  on.  Coming  to 
verse  4th,  he  meets  with  this  qualification  of  the  bi- 
shop: "one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,"  i.e.  family. 
But  how  can  he,  if  not  permitted  to  have  a  house  of 
his  own  ?  He  proceeds  :  "  having  his  children  in 
subjection."  His  children — his  children  ! !  !  What,  a 
bishop  having  children  of  his  own,  and  having  them 
collected  in  a  family  too  !  And  then  there  follows  a 
most  provoking  parenthesis,  "  for  if  a  man  know  not 
how  to  rule  his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of 
the  church  of  God  ?"  His  ruling  his  own  house  well 
is  to  be  a  criterion  of  his  ability  to  take  care  of  the 
church  of  God,  and  yet  they  say  that  he  must  not 
marry ! 

But  the  apostle  passes  on  to  speak  of  the  deacons, 
and  to  say  what  they  must  be ;  and  in  verse  llth,  he 
says  what  sort  of  wives  they  should  have — "  even  so 
must  their  wives  be  grave,"  &c.  So  far  from  en- 
couraging a  doubt  whether  they  should  marry  or  not, 
Paul  gives  them  directions  for  choosing  a  wife. 
13 


146  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

Now,  need  any  one  wonder  that  the  priests  do  not 
want  to  have  the  Bible  read  by  the  people ;  a  Bible 
which  contains  such  statements  as  these,  and  which 
moreover  declares  that  marriage  is  honorable  in  aft, 
without  exception  of  clergy  ?  I  do  not  wonder  at  it. 
Who  would  put  into  the  hands  of  his  children  and 
servants,  and  recommend  to  their  perusal  and  belief,  a 
book  containing  statements  so  much  at  variance  with 
his  oral  communications  to  them  ? 

But  there  is  a  passage  a  little  farther  on,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  chapter  4,  which,  I  suppose,  constitutes 
with  the  priests  a  still  stronger  objection  to  the  popu- 
lar reading  of  this  part  of  the  Bible  particularly. 
"  The  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter 
times  some  shall  depart  from  the  faith— forbidding  to 
marry"  Now,  they  are  afraid  that  if  the  people  were 
to  read  this,  they  might  say,  "  Why,  St.  Paul  must 
mean  our  church,  it  forbids  to  marry."  And  as  it 
might  give  the  priests  some  trouble  to  show  that  he 
did  not  mean  their  church,  the  better  way  is  not  to  let 
the  people  know  that  there  is  any  such  passage  in  the 
Bible. 


39.    A  Holier  State  than  Matrimony: 

In  one  of  his  last  letters  to  Mr.  Breckenridge,  Mr. 
Hughes,  of  Philadelphia,  says  that  the  Catholic  church 
does  not  forbid  marriage,  but  "  she  holds,  however,  that 
there  is  a  holier  state"  When  I  had  read  the  letter 


THOUGHTS   ON     POPERY.  147 

thus  far,  I  stopped,  and  said  to  myself,  "  How  is  this  ? 
a  holier  state  !  I  must  look  into  this."  So  I  thought  a 
moment ;  and  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  I  could 
not  hold  with  the  Catholic  church  in  this  thing,  for 
the  following  reasons  among  others. 

1.  Because,  according   to  this  doctrine  there  is  a 
holier  state  than  that  to  which  Enoch  attained,  and 
from  which  he  was  translated  !   He,  we  know,  was  a 
married  man,  and  begat  sons  and  daughters ;  and  it 
would  seem  that  he  married  earlier  than  any  other 
Patriarch!    And  yet  all  the  while  after  his  marriage, 
for  three  hundred  years,  he  walked  with  God;  and 
"  he  had  this  testimony,  that  he  pleased  God ;"  and 
God,  in  honor. of  his  eminent  piety,  translated  him 
"  that  he  should  not  see  death !"    Now  do  you  sup- 
pose I  am  going  to  believe  that  the  state  of  a  Roman 
priest  is  holier  than  that  of  Enoch  5  and  that  he  would 
have  been  a  better  man  if  he  had  let  marriage  alone  ? 
Never.     I  would  ask,  Do  the   priests  do  more   than 
walk  with  God  ?  Have  they  a  higher  testimony  than 
that  they  please  him  ?    Are  they  translated  ?  What 
is  the  reason  we  never  hear  of  their  holier  state  being 
thus  honored  ? 

2.  If  there  be  a  holier  state  than  matrimony,  why 
did  not  the  law  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  enjoin  celi- 
bacy, as  the  letter  tells  us  the  law  of  the  Catholic 
priesthood  does  ?    Above  all,  why  was  not  the  high 
priest,  whose  functions  were  of  the  most  sacred  cha- 
racter, so  much  as  permitted  to  occupy  that  holier 
state  ?  He  was  not  only  authorized,  but,  it  is  believed, 
was  obliged  to  marry. 

3.  The  letter  says,  speaking  of  the  Catholic  church, 
u  the  law  of  her  priesthood  enjoins  celibacy,  &c,    She 


148  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

does  not  choose  them  (those  who  marry)  for  her  cler- 
gy." Truly,  she  is  very  fastidious  in  the  choice  of 
her  clergy.  Why  need  she  be  so  much  more  parti- 
cular than  Paul  required  Timothy  and  Titus  to  be  in 
the  choice  of  their  clergy  ?  Their  bishops  and  dea- 
cons might  have  a  wife  ;  but  if  any  "  wish  to  marry,5* 
she  does  not  choose  them  for  her  clergy  ! 

4.  I  thought  when  I  read  about  the  holier  state, 
"what  if  all  the  world  should  aspire  to  the  holier 
state  ?"  Certainly,  if  it  is  holier,  they  ought  to  aspire 
to  it.  Priests  are  not  the  only  persons  who  are  com- 
manded to  be  perfect. 

Let  the  Catholic  priesthood  no  longer  make  such  an 
ado  about  their  celibacy,  as  a  holier  state.  Protes- 
tants allow  their  clergy  to  do  as  they  please  in  this 
matter.  If  they  remain  unmarried,  it  is  all  very  well. 
At  the  same  time  they  are  not  extremely  solicitous 
that  their  ministers  should  aspire  to  any  holier  state 
than  that  from  which  Enoch  was  translated. 


40.    Auricular  Confession. 

I  have  been  thinking  with  myself,  where  is  the  au- 
thority for  this  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Catholics — 
whence  came  the  idea  of  confessing  sin  to  a  priest  ? 
Every  one  admits  that  sin  ought  to  be  confessed — but 
why  to  a  priest?  Common  sense  would  seem  to  dic- 
tate that  confession  should  be  made  immediately  to 
the  being  offended ;  especially  if  he  be  easily  access!- 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  149 

bie.  If  a  child  offends  his  father,  does  he  confess  the 
ofFence  to  some  third  person,  when  his  father  is  near 
at  hand  too ;  and  above  all,  does  he  select  for  that  third 
person,  an  equally  offending  brother?  Was  ever  such 
a  thing  heard  of  as  this  ?  Yet  this  is  the  Catholic 
doctrine.  It  sends  us  to  a  brother  as  deep  in  the  of- 
fence as  we,  to  confess  to  him,  that  we  have  sinned 
against  our  father,  when  that  father  is  near  by,  and 
when,  moreover,  he  says  "  Come  to  me !"  I  think 
both  the  brothers,  the  penitent  and  the  priest,  had 
much  better  go  directly  to  the  father.  I  find  that  this 
is  what  they  used  to  do  in  old  times.  I  have  been 
looking  into  the  Bible  to  discover  how  it  was  then, 
and  I  perceive  that  they  all  went  to  God  to  make  their 
confessions.  They  did  not  stop  at  the  priest.  There 
was  David,  and  Daniel,  and  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  and 
I  know  not  how  many  more.  They  all  went  with 
their  sin  directly  to  God.  Read  that  precious  Psalm, 
the  51st.  There  is  David  before  God.  He  confesses 
to  the  one  he  had  offended.  "  Against  thee,"  he  says. 
And  may  we  not  use  that  Psalm  ?  May  we  not  go 
and  say  "against  thee?"  Must  we  turn  aside  to  the 
priest  ?  The  publican  did  not.  He  went  straight  on 
to  God.  And  the  prodigal  did  not  stop  short  of  his 
father.  Why  should  we?  Why  should  Catholics? 
I  think  the  sinner  should  go  on  to  God — and  I  do 
not  like  that  Catholic  doctrine,  because  it  stops  him 
as  he  is  going  to  God.  The  sinner  is  on  his  way  to 
confess  his  sin  to  his  maker,  and  to  implore  of  him 
pardoning  mercy,  and  it  says  to  him  "  you  need  not 
go  so  far — the  priest  will  hear  you  confess — he  can 
forgive  you."  I  like  better  the  Protestant  doctrine, 
which  speeds  and  cheers  the  penitent  on  his  way  to  God. 
13* 


150  THOUGHTS    ON     POPERY. 

Nor  can  I  see  why  we  want  more  than  one  media- 
tor between  us  and  God.  Why  is  not  Christ  enough  ? 
How  admirably  qualified  he  is  for  his  work?  With 
one  nature  that  reaches  up  to  God,  and  another  that 
reaches  down  to  man,  how  excellently  fitted  is  he  to 
mediate  for  us  !  Do  we  want  another  between  us  and 
Christ  ?  O  no.  Let  the  priest  please  not  put  him- 
self in  the  way.  Jesus  says,  "  Come  unto  me  ;"  we 
want  no  human  priest  between  us  and  our  "  great  High 
Priest,  that  is  passed  into  the  heavens  for  us." 

I  may  be  very  dull,  but  really  I  cannot  see  for  my 
part  what  is  the  use  of  the  priest ;  for  surely  he  can- 
not forgive  a  sinner,  unless  he  repents  ;  and  if  he  does 
repent,  God  forgives  him,  and  then  who  cares  whether 
the  priest  forgives  him  or  not.  If  confession  to  the 
priest  is  intended  to  supersede  confession  to  God,  it 
is  certainly  a  great  mischief.  If  not  so  intended,  it  is 
useless,  for  our  being  forgiven  depends  on  the  nature 
of  our  confession  to  God,  as  penitent  or  otherwise. 

But  they  allege  in  support  of  their  doctrine,  a  verse 
of  Scripture,  "  confess  your  faults  one  to  another."  I 
suppose  the  reason  they  allege  this  is,  that  it  is  the 
best  they  can  find  for  their  purpose.  They  must  be 
hard  pushed  for  authority,  when  they  resort  to  that 
passage.  " Confess  your  faults  one  to  another"  This 
implies  something  mutual.  If  I  confess  to  the  priest, 
he  must  confess  to  me,  for  it  says  one  to  another. 
This  puts  priests  and  all  on  a  level.  There  is  no- 
thing auricular  in  this.  Certainly  we  ought  to  con- 
fess our  faults  one  to  another,  and  to  "  pray  one  for 
another,"  as  the  same  apostle  exhorts.  But  this  is  by 
no  means  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  confession.  That 
is  quite  a  different  thing. 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  151 

On  the  whole,  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  world  can 
dispense  with  this  doctrine,  and  with  the  practice 
founded  on  it  as  well  as  with  any  thing  which  it  has 
in  use. 


4:1.    A  Mistake  Corrected* 

In  an  article  entitled  "  Auricular  Confession,"  the 
writer  stated,  that  in  looking  into  the  Bible  he  disco- 
vered that  all  the  penitents  mentioned  therein  went 
directly  to  God  to  make  their  confessions  of  sin,  and 
not  to  the  priests ;  and  he  spoke  of  David,  Daniel,  Ez- 
ra, and  Nehemiah,  as  examples  in  point.  He  finds,  how- 
ever, that  he  was  mistaken  in  saying  that  they  all 
confessed  to  God  instead  of  the  priests.  There  is  one 
exception,  and  he  is  willing  that  the  Catholics  should 
have  the  advantage  of  it.  It  is  the  case  of  Judas  Is- 
cariot,  recorded  in  Matthew,  27  :  3,  4.  He  did  not  go  to 
God  with  his  confession.  He  went  to  the  chief  priests, 
and  it  was  to  them  he  said,  "  I  have  sinned,  in  that  I 
have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood."  Here,  we  must 
confess,  is  an  example  of  confession  to  a  priest. 
But  it  is  the  only  one,  I  believe,  in  the  Bible.  Ju- 
das also  brought  money  (thirty  pieces  of  silver)  to 
the  priests ;  so  that  the  Catholics  have  authority 
(such  as  it  is)  for  that  part  of  their  practice.  I  am 
determined  I  will  do  the  Catholics  justice.  They 
shall  have  the  advantage  of  every  particle  of  Scrip- 
ture which  really  makes  in  their  favor.  It  is  well 
known  that  they  need  it. 


J52  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

But,  poor  man !  He  got  nothing  by  going  to  the 
priests.  It  was  their  cruel  and  contemptuous  treat- 
ment of  him,  as  much  as  any  thing  else,  that  deter- 
mined him  to  go  and  hang  himself.  How  differently 
even  Judas  would  have  been  treated,  if  he  had  gone 
with  a  broken  heart  to  our  great  High  Priest,  Jesus ! 
Ah,  he  had  better  gone  to  him  whom  he  betrayed, 
than  to  them  to  whom  he  betrayed  him.  I  think  I  shall 
always  go  to  Him,  notwithstanding  the  example  of 
Judas. 


42.     Purgatory. 

There  are  no  worse  reasoners  than  the  Catholics ; 
and  1  suppose  the  cause  of  this  is  that  they  are  so  lit- 
tle accustomed  to  reason.  Men  rarely  do  well  what 
they  are  not  used  to  do.  The  mind  needs  to  be  dis- 
ciplined to  thinking  and  reasoning,  else  it  performs 
these  operations  but  very  indifferently.  Hence,  you 
hear  so  many  persons  say  therefore,  when  nothing 
follows,  or,  at  any  rate,  that  does  not  follow  which 
they  suppose.  Of  this,  the  Catholics,  not  being  in 
the  habit  of  thinking  and  reasoning,  their  very  reli- 
gion prohibiting  these  operations,  afford  us  some  won- 
derful specimens.  Between  their  premises  and  con- 
clusion there  is  often  so  great  a  gulf,  so  deep  and 
wide  both,  that  I  have  wondered  how  they  manage  to 
get  over  it.  Let  us  hear  them  on  the  subject  of  pur- 
gatory. They  feel  as  if  they  would  like  to  have  a  lit- 
tle Scripture  for  this  dogma  of  theirs — a  text  or  two; 


THOUGHTS    ON   FOPERY.  153 

not  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  faithful,  (for  to  them  it  is 
sufficient  that  the  church  believes  the  doctrine,)  but  to 
meet  the  heretics.  But  where  shall  they  find  in  the 
Bible  any  thing  favorable  to  purgatory.  The  Bible 
speaks  plainly  enough  of  two  places  beyond  the  grave, 
but  it  says  nothing  about  a  third  place.  It  tells  us  of 
a  heaven  and  a  hell,  but  of  an  intermediate  purgatory 
never  a  word.  It  is  true  that  some  hundreds  of  years 
afterwards  certain  writers  speak  of  it  as  a  Christian 
doctrine,  but  I  want  to  know  why  the  older,  the  in- 
spired writers,  say  nothing  about  it.  We  read  fre- 
quently in  the  Bible  of  being  purged  from  sins,  but 
most  unfortunately  for  the  Catholic  doctrine,  the 
purging  is  done  in  this  life,  not  after  death ;  and  it  is 
done,  not  by  fire,  as  that  doctrine  asserts,  but  by 
blood.  So  that  those  passages  in  which  purging  oc- 
curs, do  not  help  the  Catholic  cause.  Then  they  look 
in  the  Bible  for  the  word  fire  ;  and  they  read  of  the 
fire  that  is  not  quenched,  and  of  everlasting  fire,  pre- 
pared for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  But  this  will  not 
answer  their  purpose.  This  fire  is  everlasting,  and 
for  devils  as  well  as  wicked  men.  They  never  ima- 
gined a  purgatory  for  devils.  The  fire  of  their  pur- 
gatory is  to  be  quenched. 

But  there  is  a  passage  having  fire  in  it,  which  they 
adduce  as  to  the  point.  It  is  1  Cor.  3  :  15 :  "yet  so  as 
by  fire."  These  are  the  premises  in  the  grand  argu- 
ment ;  and  the  conclusion  is  purgatory,  a  place  of  tem- 
porary punishment  by  fire  after  this  life.  Q,.  E.  D. 
Those  letters  were  never  more  out  of  place.  If  there 
existed  independent  and  irrefragible  proof  from  ano- 
ther quarter  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  in  that  case 
it  might  be  innocently  imagined  that  the  apostle  had 


154  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

in  his  mind  some  remote  allusion  to  it  in  this  chap- 
ter ;  but  that  this  proverbial  phrase,  "  saved,  yet  so  as 
by  fire,"  signifying,  as  used  by  writers  both  sacred  and 
profane,  a  narrow  escape,  out  of  a  great  danger, 
should  be  relied  on  as  the  principal  support  of  the 
doctrine,  is  truly  marvelous  !  I  always  thought  that 
the  fire  of  purgatory  was  to  purify  metis  souls ;  but 
the  fire  here  spoken  of  is  to  try  every  marts  work. 
Besides,  it  is  not  said  that  the  person  shall  be  saved 
by  fire,  but  50  as  by  fire  ;  that  is,  with  the  like  difficulty 
with  which  a  man  in  a  burning  house  is  saved  from 
its  conflagration.  A  good  man,  who,  on  the  precious 
foundation  of  Jesus  Christ,  builds  worthless  materials, 
such  as  wood,  hay,  stubble,  shall  suffer  the  loss  of  his 
work,  yet  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  though  with  great 
difficulty,  so  as  by  Jire.  So  much  for  the  main  pillar 
of  purgatory. 

But  they  point  us  to  Matthew,  5.  25,  26,  "  agree 
with  thine  adversary  quickly,  while  thou  art  in  the 
way  with  him ;  lest  at  any  time  the  adversary  deliver 
thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the 
officer,  and  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  thou  shalt  by  no  means  come  out  thence 
till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost  farthing."  Now  I 
would  look  the  intelligent  Catholic,  who  refers  to  this 
in  proof  of  purgatory,  in  the  face,  and  ask  him  if  he  is 
in  earnest ;  if  he  can  think  that  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory derives  any  support  from  that  passage.  What  is 
it  but  a  most  excellent  piece  of  advice  in  reference  to 
the  settlement  of  differences  among  men?  But  they 
say,  "  does  not  Christ,  in  Matthew,  12  :  32,  speak  of  a 
sin  which  shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this  world, 
neither  in  the  world  to  come ;  and  does  not  this  imply 


THODGHTS   ON    POPERY.  155 

that  some  sins  may  be  forgiven  in  the  world  to  come?" 
It  implies  no  such  thing.  That  form  of  expression  is 
employed  but  to  strengthen  the  denial.  Besides,  how 
can  they  be  said  to  be  forgiven,  if  they  are  purged 
away  by  fire  ? 

Ah,  but  does  not  St.  Peter  say  that  Christ  went  and 
preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison  ?  Where  were  they 
but  in  purgatory  ?  But  were  all  the  giant  sinners  be- 
fore the  flood  in  purgatory  ?  If  so,  there  may  be  some 
hope  for  us  heretics.  But  why  should  Christ  go  to 
purgatory  to  preach  to  the  spirits  there  ?  It  is  not  by 
preaching,  according  to  the  Catholics,  that  souls  are 
liberated  from  purgatory,  but  by  prayers  and  masses, 
well  paid  for.  And  why  should  Christ  select  out  the 
antediluvian  sinners,  and  preach  only  to  them  ?  In- 
deed, I  think  the  friends  of  purgatory  had  better  give 
up  that  text ;  and  not  attempt  to  support  their  dogma 
by  Scripture,  but  be  content  with  tradition,  consoling 
themselves  with  the  reflection  that  though  nothing  is 
written  about  it,  yet  it  has  been  handed  down. 

As  for  us  Protestants,  we  do  not  believe  in  burning 
out  sin — in  salvation  by  Jlre.  We  protest  against  it. 
We  believe  in  the  washing  away  of  sin,  and  that  by 
the  blood  of  Jesus  alone :  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
his  son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  What  is  there 
left  for  fire  to  do  ?  The  spirits  of  the  just  made  per- 
fect ascribe  no  part  of  their  salvation  to  fire.  No. 
Their  ascription  is  "  unto  him  that  loved  us,  and 
washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood."  How 
could  souls  just  come  up  out  of  purgatory,  where  they 
have  been  hundreds,  perhaps  thousands  of  years,  un- 
dergoing the  purification  of  fire,  unite  in  this  song? 


156  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

13.     More  about  Purgatory. 

What  low  and  unworthy  thoughts  the  Catholics  must 
have  of  the  work  of  Christ  and  of  the  efficacy  of  his 
blood,  that  they  should  believe  that  after  he  has  done 
all  he  can  for  a  soul,  and  his  blood  has  exhausted  its 
virtue  on  it,  it  has  still  to  be  subjected  to  the  action  of 
an  intense  flame,  for  no  one  knows  how  long,  in  order 
that  the  expiation  of  its  sins  may  be  complete,  and 
its  salvation  perfected !  What  a  doctrine !  Why, 
according  to  this,  Christ  was  premature  in  saying  on 
the  cross,  "  It  is  finished."  It  was  not  finished.  The 
expiation  of  sin  was  only  begun  on  Calvary.  It  is 
completed  in  Purgatory  !  O  God,  I  pray  thee  rid 
and  deliver  the  mind  of  man  from  this  dreadful  delu- 
sion, so  derogatory  to  thy  dear  Son,  our  blessed  Sa- 
vior ;  and  so  injurious  to  thee,  for  it  represents  thee, 
who  delightest  in  mercy,  as  punishing  after  thou  hast 
pardoned ;  as  requiring  satisfaction  from  men,  after 
thou  hast  accepted  for  them  the  satisfaction  of  Christ ! 

Now  I  know  the  reason  why  Catholics  are  never 
happy  in  the  prospect  of  death — why  the  dying  vota- 
ries of  that  religion  never  exclaim,  "  O  death  where 
is  thy  sting  ?  O  grave  where  is  thy  victory  ?"  It  is 
because  they  are  expecting  to  go  to  a  place  of  fire. 
How  can  they  be  triumphant  in  the  "  certain  fearful 
looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indignation  ?"  How 
can  their  religion  be  other  than  what  it  is,  a  religion 
of  fear  and  foreboding. 

I  have  a  few  more  things  to  say  upon  this  subject; 
one  of  them  is  this :  If  there  was  in  the  time  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  such  a  place  as  Purgatory,  it  must 
have  been  a  place  of  little  note  and  of  little  use — of 


THOUGHTS   ON  POPERY.  157 

little  note,  for  they  say  nothing  about  it — and  of  little 
use,  because  we  hear  of  no  one  going  there.  Lazarus 
did  not  go  there,  neither  did  Dives — nor  did  the  thief 
who  was  saved  from  the  cross — nor  did  Judas.  Paul 
speaks  of  those  Christians  who  are  absent  from  the 
body,  as  present  with  the  Lord.  Is  Christ  in  Purga- 
tory ?  Is  it  there  that  believers  go  to  be  ever  with 
him?  But  hark  !  a  voice  from  heaven  !  now  we  shall 
know  how  it  is  :  "I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven,"  says 
St.  John,  "  saying  unto,  me,  write,  blessed  are  the  dead 
which  die  in  the  Lord  from  henceforth  ;  yea,  saith  the 
Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their  labors."  They 
that  die  in  the  Lord,  rest.  Then  certainly  they  are 
not  in  Purgatory. 

If  Purgatory  is  full  of  souls,  who  are  helped  by  the 
prayers  of  the  faithful  on  earth,  as  Catholics  say, 
why,  in  the  multitude  of  their  exhortations,  do  the 
sacred  writers  never  so  much  as  give  us  a  hint  about 
praying  for  those  poor  suffering  souls  ?  What  a  cruel 
oversight  it  was  in  them  ! 

I  smile  sometimes  when  I  look  at  this  doctrine  of 
Purgatory.  But  I  repress  the  smile.  Ludicrous  as 
the  doctrine  is,  it  is  still  more  pernicious.  What  does 
it  do,  that  is  so  bad  ?  Why,  it  turns  away  the  atten- 
tion of  the  soul  from  Christ.  It  says  the  very  opposite 
of  "  behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world."  And  then  it  tells  men  that  they 
may  not  only  live,  but  die  wickedly,  and  yet  entertain 
the  hope  of  salvation.  It  proclaims  the  possibility  of 
a  post-mortem  repentance  and  purification  from  sin. 
It  emboldens  men  to  go  out  of  the  world  in  impeni- 
tence, assuring  them  that  though  they  do,  yet  prayers 
and  masses  offered  for  them  after  death  can  save 


158  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

them.  It  denies  that  we  are  to  be  judged  and  dealt 
with  according  to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body  ;  whereas, 
the  Bible  declares  that  according  to  these,  we  are  to 
receive. 

On  the  whole,  for  this  doctrine  of  Purgatory  there 
is  neither  Scripture,  nor  reason,  nor  common  sense. 
This,  however,  may  be  said  of  it.  It  is  a  profitable 
doctrine.  Yes,  a  capital  speculation.  There  is  no 
doctrine  which  pays  so  well.  You  have  heard  of  Pe- 
ter's  pence.  Here  his  boasted  successors  get  their 
pounds. 


44.    A  Strange  Tiling. 

I  read  the  other  day  in  a  Baltimore  newspaper  the 
following  article : 

"  OBSEQUIES.— This  day  the  Prelates  and  Theologians  of  the 
Catholic  Provincial  Council,  now  in  session  in  this  city,  to- 
gether with  several  other  priests,  celebrated  the  solemn  office 
for  the  repose  of  the  souls  of  the  Right  Rev.  Doctor  Fenwick, 
of  Cincinnati,  and  De  Neker,  of  New  Orleans.  The  Right  Rev. 
Doctor  Rosati  celebrated  the  High  Mass,  attended  by  the  pro- 
per officers.  After  the  Gospel,  the  Right  Rev.  Doctor  Purcell, 
Bishop  of  Cincinnati,  ascended  the  pulpit  and  preached  a  fune- 
ral Oration;  in  which  he  ably  portrayed,  in  accurate  and 
pathetic  language,  the  virtues  and  services  of  the  deceased 
prelates,  the  former  of  whom  fell  a  victim  to  the  cholera,  after 
years  of  laborious  and  successful  exertions;  the  latter  was 
taken  away  in  the  bloom  of  youth  and  in  the  midst  of  his  labors 
by  the  yellow  fever.  After  the  Mass,  Doctor  Rosati  perform- 
ed the  usual  obsequies." 

Having  finished  reading  the  article,  I  withdrew  the 
paper  from  my  eye  and  I  said  to  myself,  Where  am 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  159 

I?  I  thought  I  was  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
But  that  cannot  be.  This  can  be  no  other  than  Spain, 
Portugal,  or  Italy.  And  what  century  is  this  ?  I  always 
thought  that  I  lived  in  the  glorious  nineteenth.  But 
I  must  have  made  a  mistake  of  nine  at  the  very  least. 
This  surely  must  be  the  tenth  century;  the  darkest  of 
the  dark  ages — seculum  tenebricosum,  as  the  church 
historians  call  it — the  midnight  of  time  !  this  day  the 
Prelates in  this  city celebrated  the  solemn  of- 
fice for  the  repose,  &c. 

Just  then  it  occurred  to  me  that  I  might  have  read 
the  paragraph  incorrectly.  So  I  resumed  the  paper ; 
but  still  it  read  the  same.  Then  I  threw  it  down,  and 
I  sat  and  thought :  Well  now,  this  is  a  strange  thing — 
an  extraordinary  piece  of  business — praying  for  the  re- 
pose of  deceased  saints ! — and  those,  too,  prelates  of 
the  only  true  church — and  prelates  eminent  for  their 
"  virtues  and  services  " — dead  a  year,  or  thereabouts, 
and  yet  not  at  rest ! — and  this  by  confession  of  their 
own  church !  What  must  become  of  the  less  renowned 
Catholics,  if  the  very  best  of  their  bishops  are  tossing, 
and  burning  in  purgatory  a  year  after  having  sacrificed 
their  lives  in  the  service  of  God  and  their  fellow-crea- 
tures ;  and  need  solemn  offices  said  for  the  repose  of 
their  souls  1  I  always  thought  that  rest  to  the  soul  en- 
sued immediately  on  the  exercise  of  faith.  Paul  says, 
"we  which  have  believed,  do  enter  interest;"  and 
Christ  says,  "  come  unto  me,  and  I  will  give  you  rest ; 

take  my  yoke  upon  you  and  learn  of  me and  ye 

shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls."  I  always  supposed  it 
meant  that  they  should  find  the  rest  as  soon  as  they 
came  ;  and  not  after  a  long  life,  and  a  long  purgatorial 
period  subsequent  to  that.  But  above  all,  I  had  got  the 


160  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

impression  that,  if  never  before,  yet  in  the  grave,  good 
men  find  rest.  I  must  have  contracted  that  belief,  I 
suppose,  by  reading  what  St.  John  says,  "Blessed  are 
the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord/rom  henceforth:  yea, 
saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest,"  &c.  or  possibly 
I  got  it  from  that  other  passage,  "  there  the  wicked 
cease  from  troubling,  and  there  the  weary  are  at  rest" 
But  it  seems  lam  wrong.  Here  are  two  bishops  dead, 
yet  not  at  rest!  If  what  St.  John  says  is  true,  here  is 
a  dilemma.  Either  those  bishops  did  not  die  in  the 
Lord>  or  they  are  at  rest.  Will  the  prelates  say  that 
they  did  not  die  in  the  Lord  ?  I  suspect  not.  Then 
they  must  believe  that  they  are  at  rest.  And  if  so,  why 
celebrate  the  solemn  office  for  their  repose  ? 

Hoping  it  may  not  be  a  mortal  sin,  (if  it  be  only  ve- 
nial, I  will  risk  it,)  I  would  ask  how  the  Catholics  know 
that  these  bishops  of  theirs  are  not  at  rest  ?  Who 
told  them  so?  Where  did  they  learn  it?  It  seems  to 
me  a  slander  on  those  men.  Bishop  Fen  wick  enjoyed 
an  enviable  reputation  for  goodness.  I  have  often 
heard  him  spoken  of  by  Protestants  in  terms  of  high 
commendation;  and  the  article  quoted  speaks  of 
"  the  virtues  and  services  "  of  both.  And  now,  after 
they  have  been  dead  so  long,  to  tell  the  world  that 
they  are  not  at  rest,  and  that  their  repose  must  be 
prayed  for!  If  Protestants  had  dared  to  suggest  such 
a  thing  about  them,  we  should  never  have  heard  the 
last  of  it. 

But  it  seems  not  only  a  slander  on  those  men,  but 
also  a  reflection  on  Christ.  How  imperfectly,  accord- 
ing to  the  Catholics,  he  must  have  done  his  work ! 
that  even  those  esteemed  his  most  devoted  servants 
must  lie,  and  toss,  and  burn,  nobody  knows  how  long, 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  161 

after  death,  before  the  .efficacy  of  his  atonement  will 
allow  of  their  being  taken  to  heaven  !  And  where  is 
the  fulfillment  of  his  promise,  "  Come  unto  me  and  I 
will  give  you  rest.  Ye  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls  ?" 
According  to  the  prelates,  &c.  these  bishops  have  not 
found  it  yet. 

I  would  dare  ask  another  question.  How  is  it  that 
the  priests  and  prelates  can  tell  with  so  much  accura- 
cy how  long  a  soul  remains  in  purgatory  before  it  is 
released?  How  do  they  know  just  when  to  stop  pray- 
ing? I  will  not  insinuate  that  they  pray  as  long  as 
the  money  holds  out,  and  no  longer ;  for  in  the  case  of 
the  bishops,  I  suppose  they  freely  give  their  prayers. 
I  could  not  help  thinking,  if  they  did  go  first  to  purga- 
tory, yet  they  may  not  be  there  so  long  as  this.  A 
year  is  a  long  time  to  be  in  purgatory.  Hours  pass 
slowly  away  while  one  is  burning.  O,  is  this  a  part 
of  Christianity  ?  Can  it  be  ?  What  an  unsatisfactory 
religion,  which  will  not  allow  its  most  eminent  exam- 
ples, its  most  virtuous  votaries,  to  have  repose  even  in 
the  grave  !  Credat  qui  vult,  non  ego. 


4:5.    Canonizing  Saints. 

I  was  a  good  deal  struck  the  other  day  in  reading, 
in  a  Baltimore  paper,  the  following  notice :  "  On 
Monday,  the  17th  of  March,  St.  Patrick's  day,  a  so- 
lemn HIGH  MASS  will  be  sung  in  St.  Patrick's  church, 
Fell's  Point,  and  the  panegyric  of  the  Saint  will  be 
14*" 


162  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

delivered."     It  suggested  some  thoughts  which  I  beg 
leave  to  communicate. 

Why  should  the  17th  of  March  be  called  St.  Pat- 
rick's day  ?  How  is  it  his  day  more  than  yours  or 
mine  ?  What  property  had  he  in  it  more  than  others? 
He  died  on  that  day,  it  is  true.  But  was  he  the  only 
one  that  died  on  that  day.  Many  thousands  must 
have  died  on  the  same  day.  Does  a  man's  dying  on 
a  particular  day  make  it  his  ?  Ah,  but  he  was  a  saint. 
How  is  that  ascertained  ?  Who  saw  his  heart  ?  I 
hope  he  was  a  good  man,  and  a  renewed  person.  But 
I  think  we  ought  to  be  cautious  how  we  so  positively 
pronounce  our  fellow  creatures  saints.  Especially 
should  Catholics,  since  even  Peter  himself,  though, 
as  they  affirm,  infallible,  did  not  express  himself  so 
confidently,  for  he  says  in  his  first  epistle,  5th  chap, 
and  12th  verse,  of  Silvanus,  "  a  faithful  brother  unto 
you,  as  I  suppose" 

But  what  if  he  was  a  saint ;  every  real  Christian  is 
a  saint.  If  any  one  doubts  this,  let  him  consult  any 
part  of  the  New  Testament.  I  trust  there  were  many 
saints  on  earth  at  that  time  ;  and  I  doubt  not  that 
other  saints  died  on  that  day  as  well  as  Patrick.  I  ob- 
ject altogether  to  the  day  being  called  his.  I  have  no 
idea  that  the  365th  portion  of  every  year  belongs  pe- 
culiarly to  St.  Patrick.  I  have  no  notion  of  this  par- 
celing out  the  year  among  the  saints,  and  calling  one 
day  St.  Patrick's,  and  another  St.  Cecilia's,  and  so 
on.  At  this  rate  we  shall  have  the  whole  year  appro- 
priated to  dead  saints. 

Ah,  but  you  forget  that  Patrick  was  canonized. 
The  church  made  him  a  saint,  and  appropriated  that 
day  to  him.  But  I  have  not  much  opinion  of  these 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  163 

canonized  saints — the  saints  of  human  manufacture. 
I  like  the  sanctified  ones  better.  Our  Protestant 
saints  are  "God's  workmanship,  created  in  Christ 
Jesus."  But  granting  the  17th  of  March  to  be  St. 
Patrick's  day,  why  is  it  kept?  What  have  we  to  do 
with  it,  who  live  so  long  after  ?  Patrick  died  in  493, 
and  here  in  the  19th  century  they  are  keeping  his  day ! 
I  think  it  is  time  to  have  done  grieving  for  the  death  of 
St.  Patrick,  now  that  he  has  been  dead  more  than  1300 
years,  and  especially  when  he  died  at  the  good  old  age 
of  120.  Really,  I  think  it  is  time  that  even  the  Irish 
Catholics  had  wiped  up  their  tears  for  him.  Tears  ! 
why,  they  do  not  keep  the  day  in  lamentation  for  him, 
but  in  honor  and  praise  of  him.  High  mass  is  to  be 
sung,  as  it  appears  by  the  advertisement.  Now  sing- 
ing expresses  praise — and  his  panegyric  is  to  be  pro- 
nounced. It  is  wonderful  what  a  disposition  there  is 
among  the  Catholics  to  multiply  the  objects  of  their 
religious  honor.  O  that  they  were  but  satisfied  to 
praise  the  Lord  that  made  heaven  and  earth !  But  no 
— they  must  have  creatures  to  do  homage  unto — an- 
gels ;  and  saints  of  their  own  making ;  and  above  all, 
the  blessed  Virgin,  "our  heavenly  mother,"  as  some 
of  them  call  her.  It  would  really  seem  as  if  they  had 
rather  pay  respect  to  any  other  being  than  God  !  They 
cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  mediation  of  Jesus.  They 
must  have  creatures  to  mediate  and  intercede  for  them. 
They  are  always  doing  things,  and  keeping  days  in 
honor  of  the  saints.  How  much  they  talk  about  tute- 
lar saints  and  guardian  angels.  It  would  appear 
as  if  they  had  rather  be  under  the  care  of  any  other 
beings  than  God ! 

Now  the  idea  of  still  eulogizing,  panegyrizing,  and 


164  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

praising,  here  in  these  United  States,  one  St.  Patrick, 
who  died  in  Ireland  in  493,  how  absurd!  How  is 
piety  to  be  promoted  by  it,  I  should  like  to  know  ! 

By  the  way,  what  is  high  mass  in  distinction  from 
low  mass?  They  differ  in  several  respects.  Among 
the  peculiarities  of  high  mass,  this,  I  believe,  is  one, 
that  it  is  more  expensive  than  low  mass.  If  you  want 
high  mass  said  for  a  poor  suffering  soul  in  purgatory, 
you  have  to  pay  more  than  you  do  if  you  are  content 
with  low  mass.  And  so  it  should  be,  for  the  high 
mass  is  worth  more.  Low  mass  scarcely  makes  an 
impression  on  a  soul  in  purgatory.  It  is  high  mass 
that  does  the  business  effectually  and  expeditiously. 

As  for  us  Protestants,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with 
these  masses.  We  do  not  find  any  thing  said  about 
them  in  the  Bible.  .The  Catholic  will  pardon  me,  I 
hope,  for  alluding  to  the  Bible.  I  am  aware  that  it  is 
no  good  authority  with  him,  except  now  and  then  a 
verse,  (entirely  misunderstood,)  such  as  that  about  the 
rock,  which  they  say  was  Peter,  on  whom  the  church 
was  built,  according  to  them  !  Only  think  now,  a  man 
that  denied  the  founder  of  Christianity  three  times 
with  profane  oaths,  himself  the  foundation  of  the 
whole  church  !  Nothing  else  for  it  to  rest  upon  but 
Peter!  But  the  beauty  of  it  is  that  this  foundation 
should  have  had  a  long  series  of  fundamental  succes- 
sors, down  to  the  present  Pope !  I  always  supposed 
that  when  a  foundation  is  laid,  there  is  an  end  of  it, 
and  that  all  after  belongs  to  the  superstructure.  But 
this  is  a  digression.  I  was  speaking  of  us  Protestants, 
that  we  reject  masses.  And  so  we  acknowledge  no 
distinction  of  days,  but  the  Lord's  day.  We  keep  no 
saint's  days.  We  keep  the  Lord's  day.  It  is  almost 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  165 

the  only  day  that  some  Catholics  do  not  keep  reli- 
giously !  They  are  so  busy  with  their  saint's  days, 
that  they  quite  overlook  the  day  which  "  the  Lord 
hath  made." 

It  strikes  me  that  in  giving  this  notice,  the  priests 
should  have  used  an  easier  word  than  panegyric.  I 
wonder  how  many  of  our  Irish  brethren  know  what  it 
means.  But  u  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devotion," 
you  know,  is  one  of  their  maxims.  What  multitudes 
of  them  said,  on  the  17th  of  March,  "  blessed  St.  Pat- 
rick." Probably  many  more  than  said  "  Hallowed  be 
thy  name."  And  every  day  how  much  more  respect 
is  paid  among  them  to  the  mother  than  to  the  Son ! 
It  is  as  clear  as  demonstration  can  make  any  thing, 
that  the  Catholic  religion  is  idolatrous.  Men  may 
say  that  it  is  a  very  uncharitable  remark.  But  if  any 
one  will  dare  to  say  it  is  an  untrue  remark,  I  am  ready 
to  meet  him.  Let  us  inquire  first,  what  is  truth. 
Then  we  will  come  to  the  question,  what  is  charity. 
And  we  shall  find  that  charity  is  something  which 
"  rejoices  in  the  truth." 


46.    Glen.  Lafayette  not  at  Rest. 

A  few  days  since  I  observed  the  following  notice, 
taken  from  the  Charleston  Roman  Catholic  Miscella- 
ny :  "  There  will  be  an  office  and  high  mass  in  the 
Cathedral  on  Monday,  30th  inst.  (June,)  for  the  re- 
pose of  the  soul  of  General  Lafayette."  Also  the 


166  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

following,  taken  from  the  Catholic  Herald :  "  A  so- 
lemn high  mass  will  be  sung  on  Tuesday  next,  the 
29th  inst.  (July,)  at  10  o'clock,  at  the  church  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  corner  of  Sixth  and  Spruce,  for  the  re- 
pose of  the  soul  of  the  late  Gen.  Lafayette."  The 
General  died,  it  will  be  remembered,  on  the  20th  of 
May.  I  did  not  know  that  he  had  been  heard  from 
since,  any  more  than  the  rest  of  the  dead.  But  the 
Charleston  and  Philadelphia  editors  seem  to  have  had 
accounts  of  him  up  to  as  late  a  date  as  the  29th  of 
July.  Forty  days  after  his  death,  according  to  the  one 
account,  and  sixty-nine  days  according  to  the  other, 
his  soul  was  not  at  rest ;  and  they  give  notice  that 
measures  are  about  to  be  taken  to  procure  its  repose. 
I  don't  know  where  they  got  it.  They  do  not  say 
through  what  channel  the  intelligence  came.  They 
are  very  positive,  however,  in  regard  to  the  fact.  I 
have  often  been  surprised  at  the  confidence  with  which 
Catholics  make  assertions,  implying  a  knowledge  of 
the  condition  of  souls  beyond  the  grave.  One  would 
suppose  they  had  a  faculty,  peculiar  to  themselves,  of 
seeing  into  the  invisible  world.  With  what  positive- 
ness  they  speak  of  this  one  and  that  other  as  saints 
in  glory,  and  even  pray  to  them  as  such.  I  have  often 
thought  that  many  of  the  prayers  of  Catholics  might 
be  lost  from  the  circumstance  of  the  persons  to  whom 
they  are  addressed  not  being  in  heaven. 

We  Protestants  do  not  lose  any  prayer  in  that  way. 
We  do  not  pray  to  any  being  who  we  are  not  certain 
is  in  heaven.  We  speak  with  positiveness  of  the  fu- 
ture condition  of  characters  and  classes  of  men — the 
righteous  and  the  wicked — believers  and  unbelievers. 
The  Bible  does  that.  But  we  do  not,  we  dare  not 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY,  167 

speak  of  the  condition  of  individuals  with  the  same 
confidence ;  and  especially  dare  we  not  say  of  this  or 
that  person  that  has  died,  that  his  soul  is  not  at  rest. 
We  think  it  better  to  be  silent  concerning  the  spirit 
that  has  returned  to  God  who  gave  it,  and  wait  for  the 
great  day  to  disclose  the  decision  of  the  eternal  mind 
on  its  case,  and  that  especially  if  the  person  seemed 
to  die  in  impenitence.  We  would  not  usurp  the  place 
and  prerogative  of  judgment.  What  Protestant,  even 
though  belonging  to  the  class  of  Calvinists,  as  some 
of  us  do,  would  intimate  that  the  soul  of  such  a  man 
as  Lafayette  is  not  at  rest  ? 

But  the  Catholics  are  not  so  reserved.  They  pre- 
tend to  know  not  only  who  are  saints  in  glory,  but 
what  souls  are  suffering  in  the  fire  and  restlessness  of 
purgatory.  They  can  tell  you  the  names  of  the  per- 
sons. They  have  printed  in  two  of  their  papers,  at 
least,  that  the  good  Lafayette,  as  our  countrymen  are 
wont  to  speak  of  him,  has  not  gone  to  rest.  His  body 
rests ;  but  his  soul,  they  tell  us,  has  as  yet  found  no 
repose.  It  has  not  obtained  admittance  into  that  place 
where  "the  wicked  cease  from  troubling,  and  the  weary 
are  at  rest."  The  General  lived  a  long  time  where 
the  wicked  cease  not  from  troubling ;  and  much  an- 
noyance received  he  from  them,  in  the  course  of  his 
patriotic  and  useful  life ;  and  many  trials  and  fatigues 
he  underwent  for  liberty  and  the  rights  of  man.  Now 
it  seems  to  me  the  Catholics  take  a  great  deal  on 
them,  when  they  say  that  his  soul  is  still  subject  to 
the  annoyances  and  disquiet  which  were  his  lot  on 
earth.  Yet  they  do  say  so.  They  appoint  a  day,  a 
good  while  after  his  death,  to  sing  high  mass  for  the 
repose  of  his  soul.  Of  course  they  must  believe  that 


168  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

up  to  that  day  his  soul  is  not  in  repose,  else  why  seek 
its  repose?  If  the  person  who  inserted  these  notices 
were  living  in  the  papal  dominions,  or  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Prince  Metternich,  or  the  ex-king  Charles,  I 
should  not  wonder  at  their  proclaiming  his  soul  not  at 
rest,  for  Lafayette  was  never  a  favorite  at  Rome,  Vi- 
enna, or  in  the  court  of  Charles  X.  He  loved  liberty 
too  well  for  that.  But  that  American  Catholics,  and.  if 
the  reader  will  not  smile  at  the  incongruity  of  the 
terms  to  each  other,  republican  Catholics,  should  as- 
sert such  a  thing  of  him,  I  am  a  little  surprised.  I 
almost  wonder  that  the  people  do  not  resent  it  as  an 
insult  to  the  old  general.  If  a  Protestant  minister 
should  say  from  the  pulpit,  or  through  the  press,  that 
Lafayette  is  not  at  rest,  his  church  and  his  person 
would  be  hardly  safe.  But  the  Catholics  do  it  with 
impunity.  And  let  them.  All  the  penalty  I  would 
have  them  suffer,  is  the  contempt  of  every  intelligent 
mind. 

But  why  do  the  Catholics  suppose  that  Lafayette  is 
not  at  rest  ?  Is  it  because  none  are  at  rest  when  they 
die  ?  Is  this  their  doctrine  ?  A  comfortable  religion 
to  be  sure  !  According  to  this,  how  is  it  "  gain  to  die  ?" 
Who  would  be  "  Avilling  rather  to  be  absent  from  the 
body  ?"  Or  how  can  it  be  said,  "  O  death  where  is  thy 
sting?"  since  here  it  is,  and  sting  enough.  But  he 
who  wrote,  Phil.  1,  and  1  Cor.  15,  and  2  Cor.  5,  was  not 
a  Catholic.  Or  do  they  conclude  Lafayette  to  be  not 
at  rest,  because  only  saints  find  repose  in  death,  and 
he  was  no  saint  ?  I  wish  all  the  saints  of  the  church 
of  Rome  had  been  as  good  men  as  Lafayette.  They 
have  canonized  worse  men  than  he.  I  have  never  in- 
quired curiously  into  the  devotional  character  of  the 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  169 

general,  but  I  am  possessed  of  no  proof  that  he  was 
not  a  Christian.  Certainly,  I  find  in  his  moral  history 
no  reason  why  they  should  be  so  positive  that  he  is 
not  at  rest.  They  might  have  made  the  appointment 
conditional,  I  should  think — mass  to  be  said  for  the  re- 
pose of  his  soul,  provided  it  be  not  at  rest.  But  they 
insert  no  condition.  They  are  sure  he  is  not  at  rest. 

Well,  if  he  is  not  at  rest,  how  are  their  masses  to 
give  him  repose  ?  Does  the  Bible  say  that  they  have 
that  efficacy  ?  I  must  be  excused  for  being  so  old- 
fashioned  as  to  appeal  to  the  Bible.  That  book,  since 
it  says  nothing  about  masses,  cannot  be  supposed  to 
say  anything  of  their  tranquilizing  tendency,  I  al- 
ways forget  that  the  Catholics  have  another  source  of 
information  on  religion  besides  the  Bible.  Tradition 
they  call  it.  They  mean  by  it  the  talk  of  inspired 
men,  when  they  had  no  pen  in  their  hands ;  which 
being  heard,  was  reported,  and  so  has  come  along 
down  by  word  of  mouth.  But  I,  for  my  part,  am  satis- 
fied with  what  they  wrote. 

We,  Protestants,  cannot  join  the  Roman  Catholics 
in  their  solemn  office  for  Lafayette.  We  hope  there 
is  no  need  of  praying  for  the  repose  of  his  soul ;  and 
we  are  certain  there  is  no  use  in  it.  We  prayed  for 
him  while  he  was  living.  We  did  not  wait  for  him 
to  be  dead  first.  Now  that  his  spirit  has  returned  to 
God  who  gave  it,  and  the  Judge  has  passed  upon  it, 
we  leave  it  there.  By  the  way,  how  do  the  Catholics 
know  when  to  stop  praying  for  the  repose  of  a  soul  ? 
The  Charleston  Catholics  had  their  mass  for  him  on 
the  30th  of  June.  But  it  seems  it  was  of  no  avail, 
for  the  Philadelphia  Catholics  are  called  together  to 
sing  theirs  on  the  29th  of  July.  How  long  is  this  thing 
15 


170  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

to  go  on  ?  I  am  writing  on  the  31st  of  July.  Is  he 
at  rest  now  ?  Was  the  mass  of  the  29th  inst.  more 
efficacious  than  that  of  the  30th  ult.  ?  Perhaps  the 
next  news  from  New-York  will  be  that  mass  is  to  be 
performed  there  for  the  repose  of  the  same  soul  some 
day  in  August.  I  hope  the  church  is  not  infallible 
in  regard  to  Lafayette,  as  in  other  matters.  I  should 
be  sorry  to  think  him  all  this  time  not  at  rest. 

I  remember  an  old  Latin  maxim,  "  Nil  de  mortuis, 
nisi  bonum,"  say  nothing  but  good  respecting  the 
dead — which,  it  seems  to  me,  the  Catholics  have  dis- 
regarded in  the  case  of  Lafayette.  It  is  certainly  not 
saying  any  good  of  a  dead  man,  to  say  that  he  is  not 
at  rest.  And  it  is  cruel  to  sing  about  it.  The  Phila- 
delphia mass  was  sung.  Is  it  kind  to  treat  a  suffer- 
ing soul  in  purgatory  with  singing  ? 


17.    Praycrg  for  the  Faithful  Departed. 

I  have  taken  up  again  that  little  book,  "  The  Chris- 
tian's Guide  to  Heaven,"  published,  as  the  title  page 
assures  us,  with  the  approbation  of  the  most  reverend 
Archbishop  of  Baltimore.  Parts  of  it  I  have  hereto- 
fore reviewed,  but  I  have  not  exhausted  its  contents. 
I  find  on  page  198  of  my  edition,  the  title  of  this  arti- 
cle, "  Prayers  for  the  Faithful  Departed."  Faithful, 
said  I  to  myself;  and  is  it  for  the  faithful  dead  that 
they  pray  ?  I  was  so  ignorant  as  to  suppose  that  it 
was  for  wicked  Catholics,  being  dead,  they  were  so 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  171 

good  as  to  pray.  I  thought  there  was  no  need  of 
praying  for  deceased  Christians — for  the  faithful  de- 
parted. I  got  the  notion  somewhere,  that  good  peo- 
ple, when  they  die,  go  where  there  is  "  fullness  of 
joy,"  and  "pleasures  forevermore."  I  may  have 
imbibed  it  from  St.  Paul,  who  says  that  when  such 
are  "  absent  from  the  body,"  they  are  "  present  with 
the  Lord ;"  or  perhaps  I  caught  it  from  St.  John,  who 
speaks  of  the  dead  that  die  in  the  Lord,  as  "  blessed 
from  henceforth,"  and  as  resting  from  their  labors. 
It  is  more  likely,  however,  that  I  got  the  idea  from 
our  Saviour,  who  says  to  the  church  in  Smyrna,  "  Be 
thou  faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown 
of  life."  It  was  natural  that  I  should  take  up  the  idea 
in  reading  this,  that  prayers  for  the  faithful  departed 
were  needless,  since  he  says,  if  they  were  faithful  unto 
death  they  should  receive  a  crown  of  life.  We  are 
all  liable  to  mistakes,  that  is,  unless  we  are  infallible. 
It  seems,  according  to  the  Catholics,  who  profess  to 
know  all  about  these  matters,  that  the  faithful  don't 
get  the  crown  of  life  by  being  faithful  unto  death. 
No,  they  must  be  faithful  a  good  while  after  death, 
before  they  receive  it.  That  which  they  get  at  death 
is  very  different  from  the  crown  of  life.  They  are  a 
long  time  absent  from  the  body  before  they  are  pre- 
sent with  the  Lord.  They  don't  go  to  heaven,  or  para- 
dise. They  go  to  purgatory.  This  is  the  Catholic's 
creed.  It  don't  seem  to  agree  altogether  well  with 
the  Savior's  promise  to  the  Smyrneans.  A  simple 
man  would  suppose  that  fidelity  unto  death  was  im- 
mediately followed  by  the  crown  of  life.  But  they 
that  cannot  err  tell  us  otherwise. 

Somehow  or  other  this  doctrine  of  the  faithful  going 


172  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

to  purgatory  after  death,  and  needing  to  be  prayed 
out  of  it,  seems  to  have  been  always  out  of  the  mind 
of  the  apostle  Paul,  when  he  had  his  pen  in  his  hand, 
or  was  dictating  to  the  amanuensis.  He  speaks  of  it 
as  gain  to  die ;  but  surely,  to  exchange  earth  for  pur- 
gatory is  no  gain.  Air,  however  impure  or  sultry,  is 
more  agreeable  than  the  element  of  fire.  He  tells  of 
his  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ,  just  as  if  the 
one  immediately  followed  the  other.  He  overlooked 
purgatory  ;  otherwise  I  think  he  would  not  have  had 
the  desire  to  depart.  Perhaps  he  thought  he  would 
fare  as  well  as  Lazarus,  who  made  no  stop  in  pur- 
gatory ;  or  as  the  penitent  thief,  who  could  not  have 
made  a  long  one,  since  he  was  in  Paradise  the  same 
day  he  died.  It  has  always  appeared  to  me,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Catholic  system,  this  man,  of  all  others, 
should  have  gone  to  purgatory.  He  never  did  any 
penance  on  earth — never  bought  an  indulgence — he 
repented  only  a  few  minutes  before  he  died  ;  and  yet 
he  goes  direct  to  paradise  !  Who  then  may  not  ? 

But  do  they  not  give  us  chapter  and  verse  for  pray- 
ing for  the  dead  !  It  must  be  confessed  they  do.  Here 
it  is.  "  It  is  a  holy  and  wholesome  thought  to  pray 
for  the  dead,  that  they  may  be  loosened  from  their 
sins."  2  Macb.  12 :  46.  This  looks  like  Scripture, 
though  it  does  not  sound  much  like  it.  It  passes  for 
Scripture  with  the  Catholics ;  but  it  is  Apocrypha. 
It  is  no  more  holy  Scripture  than  the  Koran  is.  I  know 
the  Catholics  contend  that  it  is  as  good  Scripture  as 
any.  But  ask  the  Jews  if  it  is  Scripture.  "  Unto 
them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  Ask  them 
if  the  books  of  Maccabees  were  committed  to  them. 
They  tell  you  no.  They  were  not  even  written  in 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY-  173 

Hebrew.  The  New  Testament  abounds  in  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  I  wonder 
some  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  had  not 
quoted  Maccabees,  if  it  had  been  Scripture.  I  would 
ask  any  one  who  reads  it,  if  it  strikes  the  ear  as  Scrip- 
ture. It  certainly  does  not.  Besides,  it  is  not  in  all 
cases  good  sense.  The  verse  quoted  in  favor  of  pray- 
ing for  the  dead  is  not  good  sense.  They  speak  of 
praying  for  the  dead  as  a  holy  thought,  and  of  prayer 
as  having  an  efficacy  to  loosen  them  from  their  sins. 
Now  any  child  can  see  this  to  be  no  part  of  Scripture. 
But  I  hasten  to  the  prayer.  "  A  prayer  for  the  suf- 
fering souls  in  purgatory."  It  is  a  curious  prayer.  I 
should  like  to  quote  the  whole  of  it.  But  some  speci- 
mens must  suffice.  Here  is  one  petition.  "  Have 
mercy  on  those  who  suffer  in  purgatory.  Look  with 
compassion  on  the  greatness  of  their  torments ;  they 
are  more  keenly  devoured  by  their  ardent  desire  of 
being  united  to  thee,  than  by  the  purging  flames 
wherein  they  are  plunged."  Observe,  here  are  spirits 
in  flames;  and  they  are  purging  flames.  Fire  may  re- 
fine and  purify  certain  metals,  but  how  it  should  act 
in  that  way  on  souls,  is  beyond  my  comprehension. 
The  suffering  occasioned  by  fire  is  very  horrible ;  but 
it  seems  that  it  is  nothing  compared  with  what  they 
suffer  from  the  love  of  God,  or  the  "ardent  desire 
of  being  united  to  him."  I  wonder,  if  they  have 
such  desires  after  God,  that  they  are  kept  in  that 
suffering  state.  I  wonder  he  does  not  take  them  up 
to  himself.  Why  should  they  suffer  so,  since  Christ 
has  suffered  for  them,  and  they  are  the  faithful  who 
believe  on  him?  Did  not  Christ  suffer  enough?  But 
the  prayer  proceeds:  "With  them  I  adore  thy 


174  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

avenging  justice."  So  it  seems  the  faithful  are  the 
objects  of  God's  avenging  justice.  I  always  thought 
that  justice  exacted  its  full  demand  of  Christ.  I  don't 
know  what  the  Apocrypha  says  about  it,  but  holy 
Scripture  informs  me  that  God  can  now  be  just,  and 
the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus  ;  and  that 
if  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  for- 
give them.  Are  not  the  faithful  pardoned  ;  and  how 
is  pardon  consistent  with  vengeance  ? 

The  prayer  goes  on  thus :  "  Remember,  O  Lord, 
thou  art  their  Father,  and  they  are  thy  children. 
Forget  the  faults,  which,  through  the  frailty  of  hu- 
man nature,  they  have  committed  against  thee." 
Then  a  little  farther  on:  "Remember,  O  Lord,  that 
they  are  thy  living  members,  thy  faithful  followers, 
thy  spouses."  Here  you  see  these  sufferers  are 
God's  children;  and  they  are  suffering  for  mere  faults, 
which  they  fell  into  through  frailty.  This  seems 
hard.  But  they  are  not  only  God's  children ;  they 
are  Christ's  living  members,  his  faithful  followers, 
his  spouses  ;  and  he  died  for  them — and  yet  there  they 
are  burning — pardoned,  yet  suffering  punishment — 
interested  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  yet  making 
satisfaction  for  themselves — paying  over  again  the 
penalty  which  the  Savior  discharged.  And  this  is 
the  Catholic  gospel!  Is  it  not  "another  gospel?'* 
And  yet  "  not  another."  It  is  no  gospel.  It  is  a  con- 
tradiction of  the  good  news. 

I  quote  but  one  more  petition  :  "  Deliver  them,  O 
most  merciful  God,  from  that  place  of  darkness  and 
torture,  and  call  them  to  a  place  of  refreshment, 
light  and  peace."  The  reader  will  remember  that 
this  prayer  is  for  the  faithful.  It  is  they  who,  having 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  175 

been  "  faithful  unto  death,"  go  to  a  place  of  darkness 
and  torture.  There  they  "  rest  from  their  labors." 
I  don't  know,  for  my  part,  what  worse  can  befall  unbe- 
lievers than  this.  Truly,  here  is  no  great  encourage- 
ment to  believing.  What  a  consolitary  doctrine  this  to 
break  in  the  ear  of  a  dying  disciple  !  Fear  not,  be  of 
good  cheer,  thou  art  but  going  to  the  place  of  "  dark- 
ness and  torture."  Can  it  be  Jesus  who  says  this  to 
his  faithful  followers?  Can  this  be  Christian  doc- 
trine ?  It  certainly  is  not  well  calculated  to  make  dy- 
ing easy.  With  such  a  prospect  before  them,  I  do 
not  wonder  that  Catholics  find  it  hard  to  die — verily 
death  has  a  sting,  and  the  grave  a  victory,  if  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  of  purgatory  be  true. 


48.    An  Improvement. 

I  always  hail  improvements.  I  am  always  glad  to 
see  things  taking  a  turn  for  the  better,  even  though 
the  improvement  be  slight.  We  must  not  despise 
the  day  of  small  things.  Rome  was  not  built  in  a 
day,  nor  will  she  be  overthrown  in  a  day.  A  system 
that  it  took  centuries  to  introduce,  cannot  be  expected 
to  pass  away  all  at  once.  Even  if  the  improvement 
be  only  in  phraseology,  I  rejoice  in  it,  because  words 
not  only  signify  ideas,  but  sometimes  generate  them ; 
so  that  from  using  right  words,  men  not  unfrequently 
pass  to  holding  correct  ideas  on  subjects. 

The  improvement  to  which  I  refer  relates  to  phra- 


176  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

seology  merely.  The  case  is  this.  It  is  the  habit 
among  the  Catholics,  some  few  months  or  so  after  a 
considerable  character  dies,  to  open  the  church  and 
have  a  service  for  him.  This  has  heretofore  been  an- 
nounced thus :  "  High  mass  will  be  said  or  sung  for 
the  repose  of  the  soul  of  such  a  one,  at  such  a  time  " 
— not,  the  reader  will  understand,  because  the  soul  is 
at  rest,  but  that  it  may  be  at  rest.  The  service  is  not 
eucharistic,  but  supplicatory.  This,  I  observed,  was 
done  in  the  case  of  a  recent  western  bishop,  and  also 
in  the  case  of  Gen.  La  Fayette,  who,  some  months 
after  he  had  died,  was  discovered  not  to  be  at  rest. 
Now,  a  short  time  ago  the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore 
died  ;  and  weeks  having  passed  away,  the  time  came 
to  take  notice  of  his  soul.  Accordingly  it  was  done. 
But  I  was  struck  with  the  alteration  in  the  wording  of 
the  notice.  It  ran  thus: -"A  funeral  service  will  be 
performed  in  the  cathedral  for  the  late  Most  Rev. 
Archbishop  Whitrield."  This  is  certainly  better  than 
the  old  way  of  announcing  it.  To  be  sure,  it  sounds 
odd  to  talk  of  a  funeral  service  for  one  who  was  regu- 
larly buried  some  months  before.  Protestants  cannot 
readily  understand  it.  But  waiving  this,  why  the 
change  of  phraseology  ?  The  best  explanation  I  can 
give  of  it  is  this :  The  Catholics  see  that  the  public 
sense  of  the  community,  though  sufficiently  in  their 
favor,  will  not  tolerate  a  thing  of  this  kind  without  a 
degree  of  restlessness,  not  a  little  annoying  to  them, 
and  perhaps  likely  to  be  injurious  to  their  concern. 
For  see,  that  reasoning  animal,  man,  who  is  naturally 
a  logician,  and  can  reason  without  ever  having  studied 
the  rules  of  reasoning,  argues  something  like  this  :  Ei- 
ther the  soul  for  which  the  mass  is  said  is  at  rest,  or  it 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  177 

is  not  at  rest.  If  it  is  at  rest,  it  is  preposterous  to  pray 
for  its  repose.  It  is  asking  that  that  may  be  done 
which  has  been  done  already.  When  a  thing  is  done, 
to  pray  for  it  is  superfluous.  Then  is  the  time  to  give 
thanks.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  soul  is  not  at  rest, 
then  common  sense,  which  is  no  fool,  asks  why  they 
put  off  the  mass  so  long — why  they  did  not  begin  to 
pray  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  sooner.  It  was  not 
kind  in  them.  And  common  sense,  which  is  also  a 
great  querist,  inquires  how  they  know  the  soul  did  not 
go  immediately  to  rest ;  or  if  it  did  not,  how  they  know 
it  is  not  at  rest  weeks  and  months  after.  Common 
sense,  not  finding  any  thing  about  it  in  the  Bible, 
wants  to  know  how  the  Catholics  get  the  information. 
And  so,  through  fear  of  the  investigation  of  common 
sense,  they  change  the  phraseology  of  the  notice.  It 
is  wise.  Well  may  the  authorities  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church  stand  in  dread  of  common  sense.  I 
do  not  know  any  more  formidable  foe  of  error  and  im- 
position. I  confidently  look  forward  to  the  overthrow 
of  the  Catholic  religion ;  and  I  expect  a  great  deal  of 
the  work  of  its  destruction  will  be  done  by  common 
sense.  I  have  not  the  dread,  which  some  have,  that 
this  religion  is  going  to  overrun  our  country,  and  rise 
to  dominion  here.  There  is  too  much  common  sense 
abroad  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  to  allow 
of  such  a  result.  The  people  of  the  United  States 
will  think,  and  they  have  a  notion  that  they  have  a 
right  to  think  for  themselves,  without  sending  to 
Rome  to  know  if  they  may.  And  they  will  ask  ques- 
tions on  subjects,  not  omitting  religion,  and  they  will 
insist  on  having  a  satisfactory  answer.  The  inhabi- 
tants of  the  old  world  may,  if  they  please,  believe  on 


178  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

the  ipse  dixit  of  the  Pope,  but  we  of  the  new,  before 
we  yield  our  assent,  require  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord," 
or  a  "  quod  erat  demonstrandum,"  or  something  of 
that  nature.  You  can  never  get  a  majority  here  to 
believe  in  contradiction  of  the  five  senses.  They  will 
stick  to  it  that  a  thing  is  what  they  see  and  feel  and 
taste  it  to  be — in  other  words,  that  bread  is  bread. 


49.    Tlie  Duke  of  Brunswick's   Fiftieth   Reason, 

A  certain  Duke  of  Brunswick,  having  many  years 
ago  abjured  Lutheran! sm,  and  become  a  Catholic, 
thought  it  necessary  to  apologize  to  the  world  for  his 
change  of  religion.  It  needed  an  apology.  So  he 
wrote  down,  fifty  reasons  to  justify  the  course  he  had 
pursued,  and  had  them  printed  in  a  little  book,  which 
is  entitled  "  Fifty  Reasons  why  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  ought  to  be  preferred  to  all  others."  This 
book  the  Catholics  have  free  permission  to  read.  O 
yes — they  may  read  any  book  but  the  Bible.  There 
is  no  objection  to  their  reading  books  which  contain 
the  thoughts  of  men ;  but  the  book  which  contains 
the  thoughts  of  God  is  interdicted  !  Men  know  how 
to  express  themselves.  Men  can  write  intelligibly. 
But.  .  .  .  ! ! 

Fifty  reasons  !  The  Duke  must  have  been  conscious, 
I  suppose,  that  his  reasons  were  weak,  otherwise  he 
would  have  been  satisfied  with  a  less  number  than 
fifty.  Why  does  a  man  want  fifty  reasons  for  a  thing 


THOUGE1TS    ON    POPERY.  179 

when  one  good  reason  is  sufficient  ?  /  have  but  one 
general  reason  for  not  being  a  Catholic,  and  I  consider 
that  enough.  It  is  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  not 
the  religion  of  the  Bible.  It  is  not  the  religion  which 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  Paul,  James,  Jude,  and 
Peter  wrote  about,  as  any  one  may  see  who  will 
compare  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  the  Council  of 
Trent.  But  you  see,  the  Duke,  feeling  that  he  had 
not  one  good  reason  for  turning  Catholic,  gives  us  fifty 
poor  ones ;  thinking  to  make  up  for  the  weakness  of 
his  reasons  by  the  number  of  them  ;  and  calculating 
that  fifty  poor  reasons  would  certainly  be  equivalent 
to  one  good  one. 

Fifty  reasons  !  I  shall  not  now  inquire  what  the 
forty-nine  were.  But  what  do  you  think  the  sapient 
Duke's  fiftieth  reason  was — his  closing,  crowning 
reason — that  with  which  he  capped  the  climax — the 
reason  which,  having  brought  out,  he  rested  from  very 
exhaustion,  consequent  on  the  amazing  effort  of  mind 
by  which  it  was  excogitated  ? 

The  fiftieth  reason  !  I  will  give  it  to  you  in  his  own 
words,  which  I  quote  from  an  edition  of  his  reasons, 
published  by  one  of  the  very  best  Catholics  in  the 
land,  so  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  about  it.  After 
going  on  about  something  else,  he  says,  "  Besides  that, 
the  Catholics,  to  whom  I  spoke  concerning  my  salva- 
tion, assured  me  that,  if  I  were  to  be  damned  for  em- 
bracing the  Catholic  faith,  they  were  ready  to  answer 
for  me  at  the  Day  of  Judgment,  and  to  take  my  dam- 
nation upon  themselves ;  an  assurance  I  could  never 
extort  from  the  ministers  of  any  sect,  in  case  I  should 
live  and  die  in  their  religion.  From  whence  I  infer- 
red, the  Roman  Catholic  faith  was  built  on  a  better 


180  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

foundation  than  any  of  those  sects  that  have  divided 
from  it."  Prodigious  ! — and  there  he  stops.  I  think 
it  was  time. 

I  do  not  know  whether  to  make  any  comment  on 
this  reason  or  not.  Sometimes  comment  is  unneces- 
sary, and  even  injurious.  I  wonder  the  Catholics  are 
not  ashamed  of  this  reason.  Indeed,  I  suspect  the  in- 
telligent ones  among  them  do  blush  for  it,  and  wish 
the  Duke  had  stopped  at  forty-nine. 

But  let  us  look  at  it  a  minute.  It  seems  the  Duke  was 
won  over  by  the  generosity  of  the  Catholics.  They 
agreed  that  if  he  were  to  be  damned  for  embracing 
their  faith,  (they  admit  the  possibility  that  he  might  be  ; 
whereas,  the  Protestant  ministers  whom  he  consulted 
were  too  well  assured  of  the  truth  of  their  religion  to 
allow  of  the  supposition,)  they  would  take  his  place, 
and  be  damned  for  him.  Now  I  wonder  the  Duke  had 
not  reflected — (but  there  are  stupid  Dukes — this  was 
a  nobleman,  but  not  one  of  nature's  noblemen) — that 
those  very  Catholics,  who  made  him  this  generous 
offer,  if  their  faith  was  false,  would  have  to  be  damned 
for  themselves  !  That  which  should  leave  him  with- 
out a  title  to  heaven,  would  equally  leave  them  with- 
out one.  I  wonder  the  Duke  so  readily  believed  that 
the  substitution  would  be  accepted.  What  if  they 
were  willing  to  suffer  perdition  in  his  place  !  The 
Judge  might  object  to  the  arrangement.  What  igno- 
rance and  stupidity  it  manifests,  to  suppose  that  one 
may  suffer  in  hell  for  another,  just  as  one  serves  in 
the  army  for  another !  What  an  idea  such  persons 
must  have  of  the  nature  of  future  punishment,  to  sup- 
pose that  it  is  transferable  !  I  should  like  to  know 
how  one  man  is  to  suffer  remorse  for  another.  And 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  181 

again,  what  an  admirable  exemplification  of  the  spirit 
of  Christianity,  that  one  should  consent,  on  any  con- 
dition, to  lie  in  hell,  for  ever,  sinning  and  blaspheming 
God  !  I  am  sincerely  glad  that  no  Protestant  minis- 
ter could  be  found  to  give  his  consent  to  an  eternity 
of  enmity  against  God.  But  the  Catholics  whom  the 
Duke  consulted,  they  loved  the  Lord  so  that  they 
were  willing  to  sin  against  him  for  ever  and  ever,  with 
ever-increasing  malignity  of  opposition,  for  the  sake 
of  saving  their  noble  proselyte !  "  FROM  WHENCE 
I  INFERRED,"  says  the  Duke,  (but  you  have  no 
capitals  large  enough  for  this  conclusion,)  "  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  faith  was  built  on  a  better  foundation 
than  any  of  those  sects  that  have  divided  from  it." 
Admirable  dialectician  !  He  must  be  Aristotle  him- 
self, by  metempsychosis. 

I  think  that  those  who  wish  to  live  and  die  Catho- 
lics, had  better  keep  their  eyes  shut.  It  is  the  safer 
way.  If  they  open  them  almost  any  where,  they  will 
be  in  danger. 


50.    The  Duke's   Seventh  Reason. 

The  Duke's  fiftieth  reason  has  been  the  subject  of 
an  article.  Each  of  his  reasons  might  be  made  the 
subject  of  one,  but  that  would  be  giving  them  too 
much  consequence.  I  have  selected  the  seventh  for 
some  remarks,  because  I  have  several  times,  in  con- 
versation with  Catholics,  heard  it  alleged,  and  some 
considerable  stress  laid  on  it.  The  drift  of  it  is  this : 
Protestants  acknowledge  that  some  Roman  Catholics 
16 


182  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

may  be  saved,  but  Catholics  contend  that  no  Protes- 
tants can  be  saved.  Therefore  it  is  better  and  safer 
to  be  a  Catholic,  than  a  Protestant !  But,  perhaps,  I 
had  better  let  his  Serene  Highness  speak  for  himself. 
He  says  :  "  But  what  still  confirmed  me  in  my  resolu- 
tion of  embracing  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  was  this, 
that  the  heretics  themselves  confess  Roman  Catholics 
may  be  saved,  whereas,  these  maintain  there  is  no 
salvation  for  such  as  are  out  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church."  Let  us  examine  this  reasoning.  Catholics 
say  that  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  their  church,  and 
therefore,  by  all  means,  we  should  belong  to  it.  But 
does  their  saying  so  make  it  so  ?  Is  this  very  chari- 
table doctrine  of  the  Catholics  of  course  true  ?  Is  it 
so  very  clear  that  none  are  saved  but  the  greatest  bi- 
gots— none  saved  but  those  who  affirm,  and  are  ready 
to  swear  that  none  others  but  themselves  can  be  saved  ? 
Have  Roman  Catholics  never  affirmed  any  thing  but 
what,  was  strictly  true,  so  that  from  their  uniform  ve- 
racity and  accuracy,  we  may  infer  that  they  must  be 
correct  in  this  statement?  Let  history  answer  that 
question.  This  is  more  than  we  claim  even  for  Pro- 
testants. No  salvation  except  for  Catholics  !  Ah,  and 
where  is  the  chapter  and  verse  for  that.  I  don't  think 
that  even  the  Apocrapha  can  supply  them.  If  subse- 
quent Popes  have  taught  the  doctrine,  he  who  is  reck- 
oned by  Catholics  to  have  been  the  first  Pope,  did 
not.  It  is  rather  unkind,  perhaps,  to  quote  Peter 
against  his  alleged  successors,  but  a  regard  to  truth 
compels  me  to  do  it.  It  is  true,  Peter  once  thought 
that  a  person  must  be  an  Israelite  to  be  saved,  just 
as  our  Catholics  hold  that  a  person  must  be  a  Cath- 
olic in  order  to  be  saved ;  but  the  case  of  Corne- 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 


183 


Hits  cured  him  of  that  prejudice.  That  led  him  to 
say  as  recorded,  Acts  10 :  34,  35,  "  Of  a  truth  I  per- 
ceive that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  eve- 
ry nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteous- 
ness, is  accepted  with  him."  This  sounds  a  little  differ- 
ent from  the  Duke's  premises.  It  is  a  little  unlike  the 
language  of  later  Popes.  They  have  not  taken  their 
cue  from  Peter.  Peter  was  a  little  of  a  Catholic  at 
first,  but  he  soon  got  rid  of  it. 

Now,  if  what  the  Catholics  say  about  there  being 
no  salvation  out  of  their  church,  is  not  true — if  there 
is  no  Scripture  for  it,  but  much  against  it — if  even 
Peter  controverts  it,  it  certainly  does  not  constitute  a 
very  good  reason  for  being  a  Catholic.  Suppose  that 
Protestants  should  give  out  to  the  world  that  none 
but  themselves  can  be  saved,  would  that  make  Protes- 
tantism any  better,  or  safer,  or  worthier  of  adoption  ? 
Would  our  religion  be  more  entitled  to  reception,  if 
we  should  publish  that  Fenelon  was  lost  forever,  and 
that  Pascal  was  excluded  from  heaven,  and  Masillon 
too,  just  because  they  were  not  Protestants,  but  in 
communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome  ?  I  think  not. 
Nor  can  I  think  that  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  is 
entitled  to  increased  respect  and  veneration,  because 
Catholics  assert  as  an  undoubted  verity,  that  such  men 
as  Locke.  Newton,  Leighton,  Howard,  and  many 
others  are  beyond  all  question,  in  hell,  not  even  ad- 
mitted to  purgatory,  because,  forsooth,  they  were  not 
Catholics. 

But  the  Duke's  inference  is  from  a  double  premiss. 
Not  only  do  Catholics  say  no  Protestant  can  be  saved  ; 
but  Protestants  allow  that  Catholics  may.  If  Protes- 
tants were  to  say  that  Catholics  could  not  be  saved, 


184  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

then  they  would  be  even  with  each  other,  and  there 
could  be  no  argument  in  the  case.  But  since  Protes- 
tants allow  that  others  besides  themselves  may  be 
saved,  while  Catholics  deny  it,  therefore  the  Catholic 
religion  is  the  safer.  See  what  credit  the  Catholics 
give  our  declarations  when  they  seem  to  work  in  their 
favor.  They  build  a  whole  argument  on  one.  Why 
do  they  not  give  us  equal  credence,  when  we  declare 
that  the  probability  of  salvation  among  Protestants  is 
much  greater  than  among  Catholics  ? 

But  what  is  it  after  all  that  Protestants  allow  ? 
They  allow  that  some  Roman  Catholics  may  be  sav- 
ed. They  allow  that  the  fact  of  a  person's  being  ex- 
ternally related  to  the  Catholic  church  does  not  of  it- 
self shut  him  out  from  salvation — that  if  he  believes 
with  his  heart  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  truly  repents  of 
his  sins,  he  will  be  saved,  though  a  Catholic :  and 
that  the  fact  of  his  being  a  Catholic,  though  much 
against  him,  does  not  preclude  the  possibility  of  his 
being  a  genuine  penitent  and  a  true  believer.  This 
is  the  length  and  breadth  of  our  admission.  It  admits, 
as  every  one  must  see,  not  that  there  is  salvation  by 
the  Catholic  religion,  but  in  spite  of  it,  to  some  who 
professedly  adhere  to  that  religion.  If  a  Catholic 
holds  understandingly  to  the  merit  of  good  works,  the 
insufficiency  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  the  worship  of  crea- 
tures, or  similar  unscriptural  doctrines,  we  do  not  see 
how  he  can  be  saved ;  but  we  believe  many,  called  Ca- 
tholics, reject  these  doctrines  in  fact,  though  not  per- 
haps in  word,  and  rely  on  Christ's  atonement  alone 
for  salvation.  Now  if  Catholics  are  so  absurd  as  not 
to  admit  in  our  favor  as  much  as  we  admit  in  theirs, 
we  can't  help  it,  and  we  don't  care  for  it.  It  is  just 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  185 

as  they  please.  We  shall  not  take  back  our  admis- 
sion for  the  sake  of  making  proselytes  to  Protestant- 
ism— and  if  they  can  draw  off  any  from  us  by  their 
exclusive  notions,  they  are  welcome  to  them. 

But  I  must  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the  extent 
of  the  Duke's  inference.  He  infers  the  perfect  safety 
of  the  Catholic  religion,  because  Protestants  admit 
that  some  Catholics  may  be  saved !  But  is  that  a  safe 
spot  of  which  this  only  can  be  said  that  some  of  the 
persons  occupying  it.  may  possibly  escape  ?  And  is  it 
madness  to  occupy  any  other  spot?  The  Duke  ex- 
claims, "What  a  madness  then  were  it,  for  any  man 
not  to  go  over  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  who  may  be 
saved  in  the  judgment  of  their  adversaries:  but  to 
sort  himself  with  these,  who,  according  to  Roman 
Catholics,  are  out  of  the  way  ?"  What  a  madness  in- 
deed, not  to  join  a  people  who  may  not  all  be  lost !  O 
what  a  madness  to  continue  to  be  Protestants,  when 
Roman  Catholics  say  that  they  are  out  of  the  way  ! 
What  if  they  do  say  so?  What  if  every  Jesuit  mis- 
sionary has  ever  so  constantly  affirmed  ?  I  suppose  a 
Jesuit  can  say  what  is  not  so,  as  well  as  any  body 
else.  I  suppose  it  is  not  naturally  impossible  for  one 
being  a  Jesuit,  I  will  not  say  to  lie,  but  to  err.  He 
goes  on  like  a  very  Aristotle.  "  Who  would  not  ad- 
vise a  man  to  take  the  safest  way  when  he  is  threat- 
ened with  any  evident  danger  ?"  Certainly,  noble 
Duke,  the  safest  way  ;  but  not  of  course  the  way 
which  some  say  is  safest.  There  are  a  great  many 
safest  ways,  if  all  which  are  said  to  be  safest,  are  so. 
But  his  higness  proceeds  :  "  And  does  not  that  way 
which  two  opposite  parties  approve  of,  promise  great- 
er security  than  another  which  one  party  only  recom- 
16* 


186  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

mends,  and  which  the  other  condemns  ?"  But  that  is 
not  so.  The  two  parties  do  not  approve  of  it.  So  far 
from  it  that  the  Protestant  declares  the  Catholic  way 
to  be  an  exceedingly  dangerous  way,  while  his  own 
way,  though  pronounced  by  the  Catholic  to  be  fatal, 
can  claim  the  most  respectable  testimony  that  it  is  the 
true  and  safe  way.  Then  comes  an  illustration,  which 
like  a  great  many  other  illustrations,  is  well  con- 
structed, but  happens  to  be  totally  inapplicable  to  the 
case  in  hand,  "  Who,  in  fine,  can  doubt,  but  that  a 
medicine  prescribed  by  two  physicians  may  be  taken 
with  more  security  than  another  which  one  of  the  two 
judge's  may  be  his  death?"  How  the  Duke  rolls  on 
his  argument !  Just  now  the  Protestant  only  admitted 
the  possibility  of  the  Catholic's  salvation.  Then  he 
is  represented  as  approving  the  Catholic  way — and 
immediately  after  as  prescribing  it !  It  is  easy  prov- 
ing any  thing,  if  one  may  make  facts  to  suit  his  pur- 
pose. I  believe  it  is  not  true  that  Protestants  pre- 
scribe the  Catholic  religion  to  those  who  ask  them 
what  they  shall  do  to  be  saved. 

People  must  become  Catholics,  if  they  please,  but  I 
would  advise  them  to  look  out  for  better  reasons  for 
the  change  than  the  Duke  of  Brunswick's  fifty  ;  and 
especially  than  this,  his  seventh.  It  is  a  poor  reason 
for  becoming  a  Catholic  that  they  say  they  are  the 
people,  and  haughtily  bid  all  others  stand  by,  because 
they  are  holier.  I  cannot  think  it  so  great  a  recom 
mendation  of  a  religion,  that  it  denounces,  and  so  fai 
as  it  can,  damns  all  who  cannot  see  their  way 
to  embrace  it. 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  187 


51.    The  Duke'*  Eleventh  Reason. 

I  don't  know  what  is  to  become  of  our  Protestant 
religion,  with  so  many  reasons  against  it.  I  don't 
know  but  we  shall  all  have  to  go  back  again  to  the 
Catholic  church,  compelled  by  the  cogency  of  argu- 
ment. Fifty  reasons  why  the  Roman  Catholic  reli- 
gion ought  to  be  preferred  to  all  others  !  Only  think. 
And  some  of  them  that  I  don't  find  any  answer  to  in 
any  Protestant  writer!  Such  a  one  is  the  eleventh  of 
the  formidable  series.  In  the  three  preceding  rea- 
sons or  considerations,  as  he  calls  them,  the  Duke 
had  been  giving  us  the  result  of  his  inquiries.  It 
seems  he  jvas  quite  an  investigator.  He  searched 
almost  every  book  but  the  Scriptures.  He  looked 
for  what  he  wanted  every  where  but  where  the  thing 
was.  When  a  man  is  inquiring  after  the  truth,  and 
consults  the  philosophers,  the  fathers,  the  martyrs, 
and  all  the  saints,  I  cannot  see  where  is  the  harm  of 
just  looking  into  the  prophets,  the  evangelists,  and 
the  apostles  too.  I  don't  know  why  they  should  be 
treated  with  such  neglect ;  I  think  they  are  quite  as 
respectable  writers  as  some  of  the  fathers.  But  be 
this  as  it  may,  the  Duke,  in  his  eighth  consideration, 
tells  us  about  his  consulting  the  writings  of  the  an- 
cient fathers,  to  find  what  they  would  advise  him  to 
do,  whether  to  embrace  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  or 
no.  And  he  says  they  all  told  him  to  be  a  Roman 
Catholic  by  all  means.  Then  says  he  in  his  ninth 
consideration,  "  I  appealed  to  the  saints  of  God,  and 
asked  them  what  was  the  faith  they  lived  in,  and  by 
which  they  arrived  at  eternal  bliss."  And  they  said, 


188  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

not  that  they  had  "washed  their  robes  and  made 
them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,"  in  accordance 
with  the  account  given  of  some  other  saints  in  Rev. 
7,  but  "they  all  made  answer,  it  was  the  Roman 
faith."  By  the  way,  the  Catholics  have  an  advantage 
over  us  Protestants.  They  know  just  who  are  saints, 
and  have  a  way  of  consulting  them  after  they  are 
dead.  We  are  not  equal  to  those  things.  Why,  the 
Duke  even  tells  us  the  names  of  those  who  made  an- 
swer. "  Thus,"  says  he,  "  I  was  answered  by  St.  Mar- 
tin, St.  Nicholas,  St.  Athanasius,  and  many  more 
among  the  bishops  ;  among  the  religious,  by  St.  Do- 
minick  (!?)  St.  Francis,  &c.  Among  the  widows,  by 
St.  Monica,  St.  Bridget,  St.  Elizabeth,  &c.  Among 
the  virgins,  by  St.  Agatha,  St.  Lucy,  St.  Agnes,  St. 
Catharine,  &c."  I  think  if  a  Protestant  had  had  the 
privilege  of  cross-examining  the  above  when  the 
Duke  consulted  them,  the  result  might  have  been 
somewhat  different.  But  no  Protestant  had  notice 
of  his  intention  to  carry  his  inquiries  into  that  quar- 
ter. The  Duke  was  determined  to  make  thorough 
work  of  it.  Therefore,  in  his  tenth  consideration  he 
tells  us :  "  Then  I  turned  to  the  holy  martyrs,  and 
inquired  what  faith  it  was  for  the  truth  of  which  they 
spilt  their  blood."  They  answered  it  was  the  Roman 
Catholic.  "  This,"  he  says,  "  I  was  assured  of  by 
thirty-three  bishops  of  Rome,  who  were  crowned 
with  martyrdom ;  by  the  saints  Cyprian,  Sebastian, 
Laurence;  by  St.  Agatha,  St.  Cecily,  St.  Dorothy, 
St.  Barbara,  and  an  infinite  number  of  other  saints." 
They  all  told  the  same  story.  "  Then,"  says  the  Duke, 
"  I  wound  up  my  argument."  But  he  concluded  on  the 
whole,  before  winding  it  up,  to  let  it  run  down  a  little 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  189 

lower.  And  this  brings  us  to  his  eleventh  reason. 
The  reader  will  please  prepare  himself  now  for  a 
prostrating-  argument.  "My  next  step  was  in 
thought  to  hell,  where  I  found  in  condemnation  to 
everlasting  torments,  Simon  Magus,  Novatus  Vigi- 
lantius,  Pelagius,  Nestorius,  Macedonius,  Marcion, 
&c."  May  I  never  be  under  the  necessity  of  descend- 
ing so  low  for  an  argument !  But  the  Duke  does  not 
say  that  he  actually  went  to  the  bad  place,  but  he 
went  in  thought.  There,  having  gone  in  thought,  he 
found  so  and  so.  Here  is  another  advantage  the  Ca- 
tholics have  over  us.  They  know  who  are  in  hell. 
We  do  not.  Perhaps  some  are  not  there  who  we 
may  fear  are.  We  do  not  hold  ourselves  qualified  to 
judge  in  these  matters.  Well,  he  found  them  there. 
He  was  quite  sure  not  one  of  them  had  repented  and 
been  saved.  And  he  asked  them  how  they  came 
there,  and  they  very  civilly  answered  that  "it  was 
for  their  breaking  off  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
church."  Now  this  is  the  argument  that  I  have  not 
seen  answered  by  any  Protestant  writer,  as  far  as 
I  can  recollect.  I  don't  read  of  any  Protestant  who 
went  even  in  thought  to  hell  to  consult  the  lost  on  the 
points  in  controversy  between  us  and  the  Catholics. 
So  that  the  Catholics  have  the  whole  of  this  argu- 
ment to  themselves.  The  Duke  says  they  told  him 
they  were  there  for  not  being  Catholics,  and  we  have 
no  counter  testimony.  Protestantism,  however,  hav- 
ing so  many  other  "  witnesses  on  the  truth"  of  her 
system,  can  easily  do  without  the  testimony  of  "  the 
spirits  in  prison."  Let  that  be  for  the  Catholics.  But 
by  the  way,  I  wonder  that  the  Duke  relied  so  unhesi- 
tatingly on  the  testimony  of  those  persons.  How 


190  THOUGHTS   ON     POPERY. 

does  he  know  they  told  the  truth  ?  Are  not  all  such 
called  in  Scripture  "  the  children  of  the  devil,"  and 
doss  not  every  body  know  his  character  for  veracity  ? 
It  is  certainly  an  extraordinary  answer  for  one  of 
them,  Simon  Magus,  to  give,  considering  the  time 
when  he  lived.  How  could  he  say  with  truth  that  he 
was  there  for  breaking  off  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  when  at  the  date  of  his  apostacy  the  Gospel 
had  never  been  preached  at  Rome  ?  There  was  no 
Roman  church  to  break  off  from. 

I  was  expecting  that  the  Duke  would  push  his  in- 
quiries yet  one  step  farther,  and,  seeing  he  was  on 
the  spot,  interrogate  Satan  in  regard  to  the  true  re- 
ligion. But  lie  does  not  seem  to  have  consulted  "  the 
father  of  lying,"  but  only  the  children.  The  truth  is, 
the  Devil  does  not  wait  to  be  consulted  on  that  sub- 
ject, but  makes  his  suggestions  to  "them  that  dwell 
on  the  earth,"  without  being  called  on  so  to  do. 

I  hope  the  Reformed  religion  will  be  able  to  stand 
the  shock  of  this  argument,  notwithstanding  the 
doubt  I  expressed  in  the  beginning. 


52.     Beauties  of  the  Leopold  Reports. 

I  have  been  not  a  little  interested  with  the  extracts 
recently  published  from  the  Reports  of  the  Leopold 
Society  in  Austria,  and  it  has  struck  me  that  I  might 
do  some  service,  especially  to  those  who  have  not  the 
time  or  the  patience  to  read  long  articles,  by  calling 


THOUGHTS    ON    POTEHY.  191 

the  attention  of  the  public  to  the  choice  parts  of  the 
reports  ;  for  even  where  all  is  good,  you  know,  there 
are  generally  portions  here  and  there  of  superior  ex- 
cellence. Will  you  allow  me,  then,  to  point  out  some  of 
the  beauties  of  the  reports?  What  has  struck  me  with 
peculiar  force,  will  probably  affect  others  as  forcibly. 
Now  I  have  admired  the  way  in  which  the  report 
speaks  of  conversions.  It  seems  that  these  Catholics 
can  foresee  conversions  with  as  much  certainty  as  we, 
poor  blind  Protestants,  can  look  back  on  them  !  F. 
Baraga  writes,  under  date  of  March  10, 1832 :  "  I  long 
for  the  arrival  of  spring,  when  I  shall  have  numerous 
conversions  ! !"  Now,  I  am  aware  that  the  face  of  na- 
ture is  renewed  when  spring  appears,  but  I  did  not 
know  this  was  as  true  of  the  souls  of  men.  It  is  news 
to  me  that  conversions  can  be  foreseen  with  such  per- 
fect accuracy.  It  is  hard  to  foresee  what  men  will  do. 
But  here  is  a  foreseeing  of  what  God  will  do,  unless 
they  deny  that  conversion  is  his  work !  But  what 
makes  our  Catholic  brother  speak  so  confidently  of 
the  conversions  that  were  to  take  place  ?  How  did 
he  know  it  ?  Why,  forsooth,  some  had  promised  him 
that  they  would  be  converted  in  the  spring.  "  There 
are  many  pagan  Indians,"  he  says,  "  who  promised  me 
last  summer  and  fall,  that  they  would  in  the  spring 
embrace  the  Christian  religion !"  This  beats  all. 
Why,  if  they  were  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion,  did  they  not  embrace  it  at  once  ? 
Why  put  it  off  till  after  the  1st  of  March  ?  But  not 
only  had  some  promised  him  on  their  honor  that  they 
would  be  converted,  but  he  says :  "  From  two  other 
counties  I  have  received  assurances,  that  many  of  the 
Indians  there  would  be  converted  to  the'' Christian  reli- 


192  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

gion,  if  I  would  come  and  preach  the  gospel  to  them  !3J 
You  see  they  had  told  others,  who  told  Baraga,  that 
they  would.  It  came  very  straight.  He  speaks  par- 
ticularly of  a  Christian  Indian  who  had  brought  him 
the  intelligence.  Now  observe,  they  had  never  heard 
a  word  of  the  gospel — neither  knew  what  it  was,  nor 
how  confirmed !  Yet  they  promised  to  embrace  it — 
promised  to  believe,  and  be  converted — to  have  their 
hearts  changed — to  be  born  again  !  I  know  that  God 
promises,  "  A  new  heart  will  I  give  you,"  but  I  never 
knew  before  that  any  man,  and  especially  one  who 
had  never  heard  the  gospel,  could  look  ahead  and  say, 
"  at  such  a  time  I  will  have  a  new  heart."  Baraga 
says,  "I  cannot  describe  the  joy  such  assurances  give 
me."  We  Protestants  are  not  so  easily  made  happy 
by  the  promises  of  the  unconverted. 

Again,  I  have  been  struck  with  the  manner  in  which 
Baraga  speaks  of  the  mother  of  Jesus,  under  date 
of  July  1,  1832  :  "When  I  decided  to  be  a  missiona- 
ry," he  says,  "  I  promised  our  heavenly  mother  that  I 
would  consecrate  to  her  the  first  church  I  should  con- 
secrate among  the  Indians,  for  I  am  convinced  she 
will  pray  her  Son  continually  for  the  progress  of  our 
missions."  Our  heavenly  mother  !  !  Our  heavenly 
Father  is  a  phrase  dear  to  every  Christian  heart ;  but 
it  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  we  had  a  heavenly 
mother.  O  !  O  !  Will  the  reader  pause  a  moment  and 
inquire  the  meaning  of  the  word  idolatry  ?  Baraga 
promised  her?  Where  had  they  the  interview  when 
that  promise  was  made  ?  He  must  have  been  praying 
to  her.  And  why  was  the  promise  made  ?  Because 
"  I  am  convinced  she  will  pray  her  Son."  What ! 
prayer  in  heaven  !  John,  in  Patmos,  heard  praise  in 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  193 

heaven,  but  not  prayer.  I  know  there  is  one  advocate 
in  heaven,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous,  who  over  liveth 
to  make  intercession.  That  one  is  enough.  But  here 
we  are  told  of  another  advocate  on  high-^a  mediatrix. 
And  she  prays  to  her  son — mediates  between  him  and 
sinners.  What !  Do  we  need  a  mediator  between  us 
and  Christ  ?  I  always  knew  we  needed  a  mediator 
between  God  and  us  ;  but  I  supposed  we  need  go  di- 
rectly and  immediately  to  Christ,  since  he  is  himself 
a  mediator.  Baraga  says  presently  after,  "  thanks  be 
to  Mary,  gracious  mother,  who  ever  prays  for  the  con- 
version of  the  heathen."  Now,  if  all  this  is  not  idola- 
try, I  wish  some  body  could  tell  me  what  idolatry  is. 
I  would  as  soon  undertake  to  defend  the  worship  of 
the  golden  calf  as  this. 

Finally,  what  power  these  Catholic  priests  have ! 
Protestant  ministers  are  only  "  mighty  through  God." 
But  the  priests  can  succeed  without  that  help.  Father 
Senderl  writes :  "  Young  people  of  sixteen  years, 
and  not  unfrequently  older  persons,  have  never  con- 
fessed nor  communed  ;  (taken  the  half  sacrament,  I 
suppose  he  means.)  I  prepare  them  for  both,  and  for 
confirmation."  7  prepare  them  !  And  another  writes 
concerning  Baraga,  that  he  achieves  wonders  of  sal- 
vation among  the  Ottawas. 

This  is  a  specimen  of  the  religion  which  Prince 
Metternich  $  Co.  our  Austrian  brethren,  those  dear 
lovers  of  liberty,  are  benevolently  contributing  to  give 
us  here  in  America.  They  are  afraid  that  our  free 
institutions  will  not  be  permanent  unless  they  help  us 
to  prop  them  up  with  the  Catholic  religion  !  Timeo 
Metternich  et  dona  ferentem.  [I  fear  Metternich,  even 
sending  gifts.] 

17 


194  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

53.    Beauties  of  the  Leopold  Reports* 

Puerility  of  the  Catholic  Religion. 

What  a  puerile  religion  the  Catholic  religion  is ! 
How  childish !  How  petty  its  cares  !  About  what 
trifles  it  concerns  itself!  The  Christian  is  truly  "  the 
highest  style  of  man,"  but  the  consistent  Catholic  is 
not  much  above  the  lowest.  Baraga writes  as  follows: 
"  It  would  be  of  essential  service  to  our  missions,  if 
there  could  be  sent  us  cups,  boxes  for  the  holy  wafer, 
rosaries,  crucifixes — of  the  last  two,  as  many  as  pos- 
sible, for  such  articles  cannot  be  bought  here.  How 
it  is  with  church  furniture  and  linen,  you  may  easily 
think.  Those  given  to  me  by  pious  persons  are  of  great 
use  to  me,  and  I  cannot  be  thankful  enough  for  them." 
Cannot  be  thankful  enough  for  boxes,  rosaries,  &c. ! ! 
His  capacity  for  gratitude  must  be  small  indeed.  We 
Protestants  often  feel  that  we  cannot  be  thankful 
enough,  but  it  is  not  for  such  trumpery  as  cups  and 
boxes.  When  we  feel  and  lament  over  the  inadequacy 
of  our  gratitude,  it  is  in  view  of  the  many  and  great 
mercies  of  God  to  us.  I  suppose  our  Protestant  mis- 
sionaries at  Ceylon,  and  elsewhere,  would  not  be  so 
very  grateful  if  we  should  send  them  a  consignment 
of  cups,  boxes,  &c.  No :  such  things  could  not  be  of 
essential  service  to  their  missions.  We  do  not  under- 
stand converting  people  as  the  Catholics  do.  They  can 
regenerate  and  pardon,  and  do  all  the  rest  in  a  trice. 
We  have  to  bring  before  the  mind  of  the  sinner  the 
great-saving  truth  of  Christ  crucified ;  but  they  have 
only  to  put  the  little  crucifix  in  his  hand.  I  went,  a 
short  time  ago,  to  visit  a  man  under  sentence  of  death, 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  195 

to  talk  to  him  about  Christ  and  his  death.  I  found  him 
gazing  intently  on  a  little  metallic  image  of  Christ 
crucified,  which  a  priest  had  left  him.  He  seemed 
indifferent  to  all  I  said.  The  priest  had  prepared  him  ! 

In  a  note  to  Baraga's  letter,  we  are  told  of  a  great 
number  of  Catholic  notions  that  are  already  on  their 
way  to  America  ;  among  them  three  thousand  rosa- 
ries !  What  a  sight  of  beads  !  How  their  missions 
must  prosper  after  this  !  A  little  afterwards,  by  way 
of  inducing  others  to  contribute  beads,  boxes,  &c.  it  is 
said :  "  The  good  Christian  rejoices  to  promote  the 
external  honor  of  the  house  of  God,  so  that  the  inner 
man,  by  the  splendor  of  the  external  divine  worship, 
may  be  lifted  to  heaven."  What  a  sage  sentiment ! 
How  scriptural !  How  philosophical  too  !  This  is 
truly  a  new  way  of  being  lifted  to  heaven. 

But  I  must  not  overlook  a  letter  of  Bishop  Fenwick, 
dated  Mackinac,  July  1,  1831.  He  writes  :  "  On  the 
second  day  after  my  arrival,  Mr.  M.  and  I  preached  at 
different  times  after  mass.  When  the  people  had  heard 
some  sermons,  confessions  began  ;  and  from  that  time 
till  the  day  of  our  departure,  we  sat  on  the  confession 
stool  from  early  morning  till  1  o'clock,  and  in  the  af- 
ternoon, from  3  or  4  o'clock,  till  10,  11,  and  twice  till 
12  at  night.  There  were  confessions  of  twenty,  thirty, 
and  forty  years."  What  a  prodigious  memory  they 
must  have  had,  who  called  to  mind  and  confessed  the 
sins  of  forty  years  !  All  that  time  they  were  waiting 
for  a  priest  to  come  along.  There  was  the  God  who 
delighted  in  mercy,  to  whom  they  might  have  confess- 
ed, as  the  publican  dared  to  do  ;  and  there  was  "Jesus 
the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,"  whom  they  might 
at  any  time  have  engaged  to  intercede  for  them.  But 


196  THOUGHTS    ON   PQPERY. 

that  would  not  have  been  to  act  the  part  of  good  Ca- 
tholics. The  good  Catholic  does  not  go  to  the  mercy- 
seat  of  God  to  confess  his  sins  and  obtain  forgiveness, 
(that  were  an  "  iniquity  to  be  punished  by  the  judges,") 
but  he  waits  for  the  priest  to  come  along  with  his  con- 
fession-stool. The  confession-stool  substituted  in  the 
place  of  the  mercy-seat !  This  is  one  of  the  doings 
of  that  religion  which  Austria  wants  to  give  us.  God 
says  to  sinners,  "  Come  unto  me,"  and  he  promises 
that  he  will  "  abundantly  pardon  them  from  his  throne 
of  grace."  "  Nay,"  says  the  priest,  "wait  till  I  come 
with  my  little  stool."  Catholics  may,  if  they  please, 
go  for  pardon  and  mercy  to  the  stool  of  confession — 
but,  my  Protestant  brethren,  "Let  us  come  boldly  unto 
the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and 
find  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need." 


54.    Partiality  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

There  is  nothing  of  which  I  am  more  perfectly  cer- 
tain than  that  the  religion  of  the  church  of  Rome  is 
not  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  do  not  care  to  say 
what  it  is — but  it  is  not  Christianity.  How  can  they 
be  the  same,  when  they  differ  so  widely  ?  Midnight 
and  noon  are  not  more  unlike.  I  will  specify  one  point 
of  difference.  Romanism  is  partial.  She  is  a  re- 
specter of  persons.  Christianity  is  the  very  opposite 
of  this.  And  not  only  is  the  church  of  Rome  partial, 
but  her  partialities  are  all  in  favor  of  the  rich.  Now 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY.  197 

Christianity,  if  it  leans  in  any  direction,  inclines  to- 
wards the  poor.  It  was  one  sign  that  the  Messiah 
was  come  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  that 
"  the  poor  had  the  Gospel  preached  to  them."  They 
were  not  overlooked  ;  far  from  it.  "  Hearken,"  says 
one,  "  hath  not  God  chosen  the  poor  of  this  world, 
rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  which  he  has 
promised  to  them  that  love  him."  The  poor  had  never 
such  a  friend  as  Christ.  He  was  himself  poor.  He 
had  experience  of  the  privations,  cares,  and  sorrows 
of  that  condition.  So  poor  was  he  that  he  had  not 
where  to  lay  his  head.  No  lodging-place  at  night  had 
he  in  all  that  world  which  his  word  created  and  his 
hand  sustained.  The  poor  are  peculiarly  his  brethren. 
And  think  you,  then,  that  he  has  opened  a  wider  door 
of  entrance  into  heaven  to  the  rich  than  to  the  poor  ? 
Think  you  that  he  has  connected  with  the  condition 
of  the  rich  man  an  advantage  whereby  he  may  sooner 
or  more  easily  obtain  admittance  into  the  place  of  his 
glorious  presence  ?  I  do  not  believe  it.  But  this  is 
what  the  church  of  Rome  teaches.  She  preaches  bet- 
ter tidings  to  the  rich  than  to  the  poor — Christ  did  not. 
But  I  must  make  good  this  charge  against  the  church 
of  Rome.  I  do  it  thus :  According  to  her  creed,  all 
souls,  except,  perhaps,  now  and  then  one,  of  every 
condition,  go,  on  their  leaving  the  body,  to  purgatory. 
There  they  are.  Now  to  get  them  out.  How  does  she 
say  that  is  to  be  done  ?  Why,  they  must  either  suffer 
out  their  time,  (that  is,  all  the  time  which  remains  af- 
ter subtracting  all  the  indulgences  that  were  purchased 
and  paid  for,)  or  their  release  must  be  effected  by  the 
efficacy  of  prayers  and  masses  said  for  them  by  the 
faithful  on  earth.  You  remember  that  mass  was  per- 
17* 


198  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

formed  lately  by  the  Catholic  congress  assembled  in 
Baltimore,  for  the  repose  of  the  souls  of  two  deceased 
bishops.  There  is  no  other  way.  Christ's  sacrifice  does 
not  give  rest  to  the  soul,  according  to  the  Catholics,  un- 
less the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  be  added  to  it !  Well,  how 
are  these  masses,  so  necessary  tp  the  repose  and  re- 
lease of  the  soul,  to  be  had  ?  Why,  how  do  you  sup- 
pose, but  by  paying  for  them!  Give  the  priests 
money,  and  they  will  say  them.  At  any  rate,  they 
promise  that  they  will.  Now,  do  you  not  see  the  ad- 
vantage which  money  gives  a  man  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  and  the  hardships  of  being  a  poor  Catholic  ? 
I  wonder  any  poor  man  should  think  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion the  religion  of  Christ.  Verily,  Popery  is  no 
religion  for  poverty.  WThat  did  our  Savior  mean,  when 
he  said,  "  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  en- 
ter into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  According  to  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine,  they  are  the  very  men  that  enter  most 
easily — they  having  the  wherewith  to  purchase  indul- 
gences and  masses.  It  is  the  poor,  according  to  this 
scheme,  that  with  difficulty  enter  in.  They  have  to 
serve  their  time  out  in  purgatory — whereas,  the  rich 
can  buy  their  time  off. 

But  is  the  thing  managed  in  this  way  ?  Are  not 
masses  said  for  all  that  die  in  the  Catholic  faith  ?  Yes, 
there  is  a  day  in  the  year  called  All-soul's  day,  (it 
comes  on  the  2d  of  November.  Alas  for  the  poor  Ca- 
tholic who  dies  on  the  3d,  for  he  has  to  wait  a  whole 
year  for  a  mass,)  when  all  of  them  are  prayed  for. 
The  poor  share  in  the  benefit  of  the  masses  said  on 
that  day ;  but  what  does  it  amount  to,  when  you  con- 
sider the  millions  of  Catholics  that  die  every  year, 
and  the  many  millions  not  yet  out  of  the  fire,  among 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

whom  the  benefit  is  to  be  divided?  It  is  not  like 
having  a  mass  said  for  one's  soul  in  particular.  But 
that  is  the  privilege  of  the  rich. 

Now  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  religion  of  the 
blessed  Jesus  that  makes  this  distinction  in  favor  of 
the  rich.  I  believe  that  Christ  brought  as  good  news 
from  heaven  to  the  poor  as  to  the  rich.  I  believe  that 
every  blessing  which  he  has  to  dispose  of  may  be 
bought  without  money  and  without  price.  See  Isa. 
55 :  1.  I  believe  that  "  whosoever  will,"  may  "  take 
of  the  water  of  life  freely."  Rev.  22  :  17.  This  is 
my  creed. 

There  was  poor  Lazarus.  I  reckon  he  went  to  hea- 
ven as  soon  after  he  died  as  he  would  have  done  if  he 
had  had  millions  of  money  to  leave  to  the  church ;  and 
I  reckon  the  angels  were  as  tender  and  careful  of  his 
soul  as  if  he  had  been  clothed  in  purple  and  fared 
sumptuously  every  day.  And  he  was  a  poor  man  to 
whom  the  dying  Savior  said,  "  To-day  shalt  thou  be 
with  me  in  Paradise."  If  there  was  ever  a  man  who, 
according  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  should  have  gone 
to  purgatory,  and  remained  a  great  while  there,  it  was 
that  thief.  But  you  see  he  did  not  go  there.  Christ 
took  him  with  him  immediately  to  paradise.  He  went 
there  without  penance,  without  extreme  unction,  with- 
out confession  to  a  priest,  without  a  single  mass  being 
said  for  him,  in  utter  outrage  of  all  the  rules  of  the 
church !  I  don't  think  that  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  rich 
as  he  was,  could  have  got  to  heaven  sooner  than  that 
penitent  thief.  But  Christ  always  considered  the 
poor;  and  that  is  not  Christianity  which  does  not 
consider  them. 

As  I  said  in  former  pieces  that  I  had  no  faith  in 


200  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

salvation  by  fire,  or  in  salvation  by  oil,  I  say  no^i    I 
have  no  faith  in  salvation  by  money. 

I  will  close  with  a  syllogism.  Christianity  makes 
it  as  easy  for  a  poor  man  to  get  to  heaven,  as  for  one 
that  is  rich.  This  is  my  ma  or  proposition.  Who 
dare  dispute  it  ?  But  the  church  of  Rome  makes  it  not 
so  easy  for  a  poor  man  to  get  to  heaven  as  one  that  is 
rich.  This  is  my  minor  proposition,  and  this  I  have 
shown.  Who  dare  deny  it?  Now  my  conclusion  is, 
therefore,  the  religion  of  the  church  of  Rome  is  not 
Christianity. 


5  5 .     Supererogation , 

This  long  word  was  coined  by  the  Catholics  for 
their  own  special  use,  as  was  also  that  longer  and 
harder  word  transubstantiation.  Nobody  else  finds 
any  occasion  for  it.  It  expresses  what  the  rest  of 
mankind  think  has  no  real  existence.  If  the  reader 
is  acquainted  with  the  Latin,  (that  language  which 
the  church  of  Rome  extols  so  high  above  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  the  languages  of  God's  choice — and  in 
which  she  says  we  ought  all  to  say  our  prayers,  whe- 
ther we  know  it  or  not,)  he  will  see  that  supereroga- 
tion is  compounded  of  two  words,  and  signifies  lite- 
rally above  what  is  required.  It  designates  that 
overwork  in  the  service  of  God  which  certain  good 
Catholics  in  all  ages  are  supposed  to  have  done.  Af- 
ter doing  all  the  good  which  God  requires  of  them  . 


THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY.  201 

then  what  they  do  over  and  above  that,  they  call  su- 
pererogation. It  expresses  how  much  more  they  love 
God  than  they  are  required  to  love  him.  He  claims, 
you  know,  to  be  loved  with  all  the  heart,  and  soul,  and 
strength,  and  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  com- 
mand. And  observe,  it  is  with  all  of  each.  Now, 
when  the  Catholic  has  fully  satisfied  this  claim,  he 
enters  upon  the  work  of  supererogation ;  and  all  that 
he  does  in  the  way  of  loving  God  after  loving  him 
with  all  the  four,  heart,  strength,  soul,  and  mind,  is 
set  down  to  this  account,  be  it  more  or  less.  Might 
I  just  ask  here,  for  information,  if  a  man  is  required 
to  love  God  with  all  his  strength,  that  is,  with  his 
whole  ability ,  how  can  he  do  more?  It  seems  that 
whatever  he  can  do,  is  required  to  be  done.  How 
Catholics  contrive  to  do  more  than  they  can,  I,  for  my 
part,  do  not  know.  It  is  a  mystery  to  Protestants. 
We  are  in  the  dark  on  this  subject. 

Let  me  tell  you  more  about  this  supererogation.  It 
expresses  how  much  more  Catholics  are  than  perfect. 
Perfect,  you  know,  we  are  all  required  to  be — perfect, 
"  even  as  our  Father  who  is  in  heaven  is  perfect." 
Matt.  5  :  48.  And  in  another  place,  even  by  Peter 
it  is  said,  "  As  he  which  has  called  you  is  holy,  so  be 
ye  holy  in  all  manner  of  conversation."  Now,  when  one 
is  holy  as  he  who  hath  called  him  is  holy,  and  holy 
in  all  manner  of  conversation,  in  so  far  as  he  is  more 
holy  than  this,  since  this  is  all  that  is  required,  the 
surplus  is  set  down  to  the  account  of  supererogation ! 
In  other  words,  supererogation  expresses  the  superflu- 
ous glory  which  men  give  to  God,  after  glorifying  him 
in  their  bodies  and  spirits,  which  are  his,  and  doing 
all  whatsoever  they  do,  even  to  the  matter  of  eating 


202  THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY. 

and  drinking,  to  his  glory !  See  1  Cor.  6  :  27,  and  Acts, 
10 :  31.  This  is  supererogation.  I  hope  the  reader  un- 
derstands it. 

Now,  those  who  do  these  works  of  supererogation, 
have  of  course  more  merit  than  they  have  any  occa- 
sion for  on  their  own  account ;  and  as  this  excess  of 
merit  ought  by  no  means  to  be  lost,  the  church  of 
Rome  has  with  great  economy  treasured  it  up  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  do  less 
than  what  is  required,  to  whom  it  is,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  church,  and  for  value  received,  served  out  in 
the  way  of  indulgences.  This  is  the  article  that  Tet- 
zel  was  dealing  in  so  largely  and  lucratively,  when  one 
Martin  Luther  started  up  in  opposition  to  the  traffic. 
Protestants  have  never  dealt  in  the  article  of  indul- 
gences. 

By  the  way,  the  wise  virgins  of  whom  we  read  in 
Matthew,  25,  seem  not  to  have  been  acquainted  with 
this  doctrine  of  supererogation ;  for  when  the  foolish 
virgins,  in  the  lack  of  oil,  applied  to  them  for  a  sea- 
sonable supply,  they  answered,  "  not  so :  lest  there  be 
not  enough  for  us  and  you."  They  had  only  enough 
for  themselves. 

But,  say  the  Catholics,  are  there  not  counsels  in  the 
Bible,  as  well  as  precepts — certain  things  which  are 
recommended,  though  not  required  ?  If  so,  and  a  per- 
son, besides  obeying  the  precepts,  complies  with  the 
counsels,  doing  not  only  what  is  required,  but  also 
what  is  recommended,  is  not  here  a  foundation  for 
works  of  supererogation  ?  This  is  plausible,  but  that 
is  all.  My  motto  being  brevity,  I  shall  not  attempt 
an  extended  answer  to  it,  but  take  these  few  things. 
1.  If  there  are  counsels  recommending  things  which 


THOUGHTS 

s 

no  precepts  require,  yet  obecH^tfttf* 
cannot  constitute  works  of  super 
mulate  merit,  unless  all  the 
obeyed.  A  man  must  do  all  that  is  required,  before 
he  can  do  more  than  what  is  required.  Now,  has  any 
mere  man  since  the  fall  perfectly  obeyed  all  the  com- 
mandments of  God  ?  Has  any  man  done  all  his  duty  ? 
If  not,  I  reckon  no  one  has  done  more  than  his  duty. 
We  don't  generally  go  beyond  a  thing  until  after  we 
have  come  up  to  it.  A  cup  does  not  usually  run  over 
before  it  is  full.  But, 

2.  According  to  this  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
men  are  capable  of  a  higher  virtue  than  God  has  re- 
quired !    They  can,  and  actually  do,  perform  virtuous 
and  holy  acts  which  belong  to  neither  of  the  tables  of 
the  law,  and  which  are  comprehended  neither  in  the 
love  of  God  nor  in  the  love  of  man  !    Is  this  idea  ad- 
missible? The  Psalmist  says,  "thy  commandment  is 
exceeding  broad."  But  according  to  this  doctrine,  the 
virtue  of  the  Catholic  is  broader.     I,  however,  don't 
believe  it. 

3.  There  is  no  counsel  which  does  not  become  a 
precept  or  command,  provided  it  be  found  that  God 
can  be  more  glorified  by  a  compliance  with  it  than 
otherwise.    The  thing  recommended,  if  in  any  case  it 
be  apparent  that  the  doing  of  it  will  redound  to  the 
glory  of  God,  is  ipso  facto  required,  and  becomes  a 
duty.     Take  the  favorite  example  of  the  Catholics, 
celibacy,  which,  they  say,  is  recommended  but  not  re- 
quired.    Now,  if  any  one  find  that  he  can  better  serve 
God  in  the  single  condition  than  in  the  matrimonial 
state,  celibacy  is  in  that  case  his  duty  ;  and  being  a 
duty,  a  thing  required,  it  can  be  no  work  of  superero- 


204  THOUGHTS    ON   POPERY. 

gation.  When  celibacy  is  not  a  duty,  there  is  no  vir- 
tue in  it.  Does  any  one  believe  that  Enoch  would 
have  been  more  virtuous,  and  walked  more  closely 
with  God,  if  he  had  not  fallen  into  the  mistake  of  mat- 
rimony ? 

But  I  arrest  my  remarks,  lest,  in  criminating  one 
kind  of  supererogation,  I  myself  be  guilty  of  another. 


56.    Convents. 

Every  body  knows  how  important  convents,  monas- 
teries, nunneries,  &c.  are  in  the  Roman  Catholic  reli- 
gion. Who  has  not  heard  of  monks  and  nuns,  and  of 
the  establishments  in  which  they  respectively  seclude 
themselves  from  the  world  ?  What  a  pity  they  cannot 
keep  the  flesh  and  the  devil  as  far  off!  But  the  flesh 
they  must  carry  in  with  them;  and  the  devil  is  at  no 
loss  to  find  an  entrance.  There  are  no  convents  that 
can  shut  these  out ;  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  it  is  not 
of  much  use  to  exclude  the  world,  if  they  cannot  at, 
the  same  time  shut  out  the  other  two.  The  world 
would  be  very  harmless,  but  for  the  flesh  and  the 
devil.  Besides,  I  am  of  opinion  that  a  person  may  be 
of  the  world,  though  not  in  the  world.  In,  but  not  of 
the  world,  is  the  Protestant  doctrine,  and  the  true 
plan.  People  forget  that  the  world  is  not  the  great 
globe,  with  all  its  land  and  water ;  but  that  it  is  often 
an  insidious  little  thing,  which,  ere  one  knows  it, 
has  taken  up  its  lodgment  in  the  heart.  The  heart 


THOUGHTS  ON    POPERY.  205 

can  entertain  the  world.  If  so,  convent  cannot  even 
keep  out  the  world.  They  do  not  answer  the  purpose 
therefore  for  which  they  are  intended. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  I  find  nothing  for  convents  in 
the  Bible.  In  the  Old  Testament  not  a  word  about 
them — in  the  New  not  a  word.  Now  if  they  are  such 
grand  contrivances  for  making  people  good,  and  for 
keeping  them  pure,  I  am  surprised  they  were  never 
thought  of  till  after  the  canon  of  Scripture  was  closed. 
Why  do  not  the  men  who  speak  by  inspiration  of 
God,  say  any  thing  about  them  ?  This  puzzles  me. 
I  wish  some  of  the  Catholic  writers  would  explain 
the  reason.  They  tell  us  why  St.  Paul  omitted  to 
say  any  thing  in  his  writings  about  the  mass.  It  was, 
say  the  authors  of  the  Rhemish  Testament  in  their 
annotations  on  Hebrews,  7:  17,  "because  of  the 
depth  of  the  mystery,  and  the  incredulity  or  feeble- 
ness of  those  to  whom  he  wrote."  We  thank  them 
for  the  admission  that  the  apostle  did  not  teach  the 
doctrine  of  the  mass.  But  how  came  they  to  know 
the  reason  of  his  silence  upon  it  ?  May  be  it  was  for 
a  similar  reason  that  he  maintained  a  perfect  silence 
on  the  subject  of  convents  ! 

But  if  convents  are  such  clever  things,  why  did  not 
Enoch  take  the  vow  of  celibacy,  and  go  into  one,  in- 
stead of  "  walking  with  God  and  begetting  sons  and 
daughters  ?"  How  much  better  a  man,  according  to 
the  Catholic  notion,  he  would  have  been,  had  he  only 
been  a  monk !  And  why  did  not  St.  John  banish  him- 
self to  some  solitary  Patmos,  and  there  live  the  life 
of  a  hermit,  before  a  persecuting  emperor  drove  him 
into  it  ?  Why  did  not  Peter  and  his  wife  part,  and  he 
turn  friar  and  she  nun  ?  We  look  to  such  characters 
18" 


206  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

for  examples.  Why  did  not  the  Marys,  or  some  other 
of  the  pious  women  of  whom  we  read  in  the  Bible, 
take  the  veil  ?  Monachism,  they  may  say,  is  an  im- 
provement on  those  times.  But  I  do  not  like  the  idea 
of  improvements  on  a  system  arranged  by  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Son  of  God  himself. 

There  is  what  we  call  the  spirit  of  a  book.  Now, 
the  entire  system  of  convents  seems  to  me  as  clear- 
ly at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Bible,  as  one 
thing  can  be  at  variance  with  another.  The  Bible 
appears  to  have  been  written  for  persons  who  were 
to  live  in  society  with  their  fellow-men.  It  supposes 
human  beings  to  be  associated  together  in  families 
and  in  civil  communities,  not  as  immured  in  monas- 
teries and  shut  up  in  nunneries.  It  takes  up  the  va- 
rious relations  of  life,  and  descants  on  the  duties 
growing  out  of  them.  But  the  system  of  Monachism 
dissolves  these  relations.  Is  it  scriptural  then  ?  But 
why  should  I  ask  if  that  be  scriptural  which  was 
first  instituted  by  St.  Anthony  in  the  fourth  century 
after  Christ^ 

Again,  if  the  system  is  favorable  to  holiness,  then 
all  equally  need  it,  since  all  are  required  to  be  equal- 
ly holy — to  be  holy  as  God  is  holy.  But  what  would 
soon  become  of  us  all,  if  the  system  should  become  uni- 
versal, and  all  adopt  these  means  of  holiness  ?  This 
idea,  that  the  means  of  the  most  eminent  sanctity  re- 
quired of  any,  are  not  accessible  and  practicable  to 
all,  is  radically  erroneous.  It  is  no  such  thing.  It 
cannot  be.  Therefore  I  conclude  against  convents. 

But  while  I  impugn  the  system,  I  bring  no  charges 
against  the  existing  edifices,  called  convents.  I  would 
never  have  them  assailed  by  any  other  force  than 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  207 

that  which  belongs  to  an  argument.  If  I  were  a  Ro- 
man Catholic,  I  could  not  more  indignantly  repro- 
bate than,  being  a  protestant,  I  do,  the  recent  burn- 
ing of  one  of  these  buildings.  If  truth  and  argument 
can  prostrate  them,  let  them  fall ;  but  not  by  axes, 
and  hammers,  and  fire-brands.  All  I  contend  for  is, 
that  the  whole  concern  of  convents  is  unscriptural. 
Those  who  inhabit  them  may  be  as  pure  as  any  who 
live  outside ;  and  so  I  shall  believe  them  to  be,  until 
I  have  proof  to  the  contrary.  This  plan  of  suspect- 
ing, and  of  making  mere  suspicion  the  ground  of  con- 
demnation, is  no  part  of  my  religion.  It  is  a  part  of  my 
Protestantism  to  protest  against  it. 


57.    Mr.  Berrington  and  Mrs.  More. 

In  reading  the  interesting  memoirs  of  Mrs.  Hannah 
More,  I  was  struck  with  a  letter  which  that  good  lady 
received  in  1809  from  Joseph  Berrington,  the  Pope's 
Vicar  General,  taking  exception  to  something  she  had 
said  in  her  "  Coelebs  "  about  Popery.  He  is  very  much 
offended  with  her.  He  complains,  among  other  things, 
of  her  use  of  the  word  Popery,  to  designate  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  religion.  Now,  some  of  us  do  not  make 
much  use  of  that  word,  as  knowing  it  is  offensive  to  the 
Catholics,  and  not  willing  to  say  any  thing  irritating 
to  them;  and  when  we  do  use  it,  I  believe  it  is  more 
for  brevity  than  for  any  other  reason — to  avoid  tedious 
circumlocution.  It  is  as  much  out  of  regard  to  the 


208  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

printer  as  any  thing  else.  I  do  not  see,  however,  why 
they  should  so  strongly  object  to  the  word  Popery. 
They  all  hold  to  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
and  regard  him  as  the  head  of  the  church.  Why  then 
should  not  their  religious  system  be  called  after  him  ? 
We  call  ours  after  the  one  we  regard  as  supreme  in 
spiritual  matters,  and  head  of  the  church.  We  call 
it  Christianity,  after  Christ.  Why  not  for  the  same 
reason  call  theirs  Popery,  after  the  Pope  ?  We  do  not 
even  get  angry  when  they  call  us  Calvinists,  and  our 
doctrinal  system  Calvinism.  Yet  with  much  more 
reason  might  we ;  for  what  is  Calvin  to  us  ?  He  is 
only  one  of  many  thousand  eminent  men  who  have 
espoused  substantially  the  system  of  doctrine  we  do. 
I  find  in  Mr.  B's.  letter  this  remarkable  sentence  : 
"  Nothing  is  more  surprising  than  that  you  Protest- 
ants should  be  so  utterly  ignorant,  as  you  really  are, 
or  seem  to  be,  of  our  tenets  ;  when  we  all,  whatever 
be  our  country,  think  alike,  and  our  catechisms  and 
books  of  instruction  lie  open  before  the  world."  He 
says  nothing  is  more  surprising.  But  there  is  one 
thing  which  is  even  more  surprising.  It  is  that  any 
intelligent  ecclesiastic  should  venture  to  write  such  a 
sentence.  He  says  we  Protestants  are,  or  seem  to  be, 
utterly  ignorant  of  their  tenets.  Now,  the  truth  is, 
there  are  few  things  we  are  better  acquainted  with 
than  the  tenets  of  Roman  Catholics.  They  say  we 
do  not  let  them  speak  for  themselves.  Yes,  we  do. 
Do  they  not  speak  for  themselves  in  their  own  manu- 
als, breviaries,  and  catechisms  printed  under  their 
own  sanction  and  supervision  ?  If  we  take  their  te- 
nets from  their  own  books,  and  quote  verbatim,  and 
refer  to  the  edition  and  page,  is  not  that  enough  ? 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  209 

Well,  we  do  so.  Yet  they  say  we  misrepresent  them. 
How  can  that  be  ?  They  may  misrepresent  and  con- 
tradict themselves,  but  it  is  hard  to  hold  us  responsi- 
ble for  that.  If  we  are  ignorant  of  their  tenets,  it  is 
because  they  do  not  themselves'  constantly  hold  to 
them.  If  they  let  go  their  doctrines,  as  soon  as  Pro- 
testants attack  and  expose  them,  and  resorting  to 
explanations,  evasions  and  glosses,  do  thus  virtually 
take  hold  of  something  different  from  their  original 
and  published  tenets,  we  are  not  to  blame  for  that,  I 
should  think. 

But  Mr.  B.  tells  us  what  makes  our  ignorance  so 
surprising:  "when  we  all,  whatever  be  our  country, 
think  alike."  Do  they  all  think  alike  ?  They  did  not 
always  all  think  alike.  See  history.  And  so  far  as 
they  do  think  alike,  does  the  reader  know  how  it 
comes  about  ?  It  is  by  virtue  of  not  thinking  at  all. 
But  grant  they  all  think  alike.  Does  it  follow  that 
they  think  right  ?  Has  no  error  ever  been  very  popu- 
lar ?  The  world  all  thought  alike  once  on  astronomy 
— all  held  the  earth  to  be  the  centre  of  the  system. 
But  did  they  think  right  ?  However,  it  is  convenient 
to  have  a  large  number  of  persons  all  think  alike,  for 
then,  if  you  can  ascertain  what  one  thinks,  you  know 
what  all  think,  and  if  you  read  one  book,  you  know 
what  is  in  them  all.  So,  if  you  chance  to  fall  in  with 
a  Spanish  or  Italian  Catholic,  and  he  tells  you  what 
he  thinks,  you  know  what  every  English  and  Ameri- 
can Catholic  thinks,  for  they  "  all  think  alike."  So, 
if  you  take  up  one  catechism  or  book  of  instruction 
and  read  that,  you  know  what  they  all  ought  to  con- 
tain. It  saves  a  great  deal  of  trouble. 

But  the  Vicar  complains  bitterly  of  the  Bishop  of 
18* 


210  THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY. 

Durham,  for  asserting  that  the  Catholics  suppress  the 
second  commandment.  He  says  it  is  no  such  thing, 
and  that  any  school  boy  could  tell  him  different.  And 
he  affirms  that  a  catechism  was  put  into  the  hands  of 
the  Bishop  containing  that  commandment,  and  still 
he  persisted  in  his  assertion.  The  Bishop  was  right  j 
and  "  nothing  is  more  surprising "  than  that  Mr.  B. 
should  deny  it.  I  have  myself  seen  two  different 
catechisms,  published  in  Ireland  by  Catholic  book-sel- 
lers, and  under  the  highest  Catholic  authority,  from 
both  of  which  the  second  commandment  was  ex- 
cluded ;  and  it  is  left  out  of  "  the  Christian's  Guide," 
published  in  Baltimore  by  the  Catholics,  as  any  one 
may  see  for  himself.  Now  what  could  Mr.  B.  say  to 
this  ?  Would  he  say,  "  O  !  those  were  published  in 
Ireland  and  America."  But  he  says,  "  we  all,  what- 
ever be  our  country,  think  alike."  Would  he  say  that 
he  spoke  of  1809,  and  these  were  published  since  ? 
But  it  is  their  boast  that  they  not  only  do  now  all  think 
alike,  but  that  they  always  did  think  alike.  Would 
he  say  that  if  it  was  left  out  of  those  catechisms,  yet 
it  was  retained  in  others  ?  Yes ;  but  if  their  catechisms 
differ,  how  do  they  all  think  alike  ?  Besides,  no  one 
ever  accused  the  Catholics  of  leaving  the  second  com- 
mandment out  of  every  one  of  their  books.  But  why 
do  they  leave  it  out  of  any  ?  Will  they  please  to  say 
why  they  leave  it  out  of  any  ?  They  have  never  con- 
descended to  answer  that  question.  They  always 
evade  it.  If  a  man  should  publish  successive  editions 
of  the  laws  of  any  country,  and  should  leave  out  of 
some  of  the  editions  a  certain  important  law,  would 
it  be  sufficient  for  him  to  say  that  he  did  not  leave  it 
out  of  all  the  editions  ?  Why  did  he  leave  it  out  of 


THOUGHTS   ON    POPERY,  211 

any  ?  Why  did  he  not  make  them  all  uniform?  A 
man  may  as  well  tell  me  I  have  no  eyes,  as  deny  that 
some  Catholic  catechisms  have  been  published  with- 
out the  second  commandment.  Now,  why  was  ever 
a  catechism  published  under  Catholic  sanction  with- 
out it  ?  Did  they  ever  publish  one  in  which  they 
omitted  any  other  of  the  commandments  ?  Did  Pro- 
testants ever  publish  a  list  of  the  commandments  with 
one  omitted,  and  another  divided  so  as  to  make  out 
the  ten  ?  Alas  for  them !  there  is  no  getting  out  of 
this  dilemma  into  which  they  have  brought  them- 
selves by  their  mutilation  of  the  decalogue.  It  is 
about  the  most  unfortunate  thing  they  ever  did  for 
themselves.  I  do  not  wonder  that  Mr.  B.  was  rest- 
less under  the  charge.  But  surely,  he  had  too  much 
good  sense  to  suppose  that  he  had  answered  the 
Bishop,  when  he  showed  him  a  catechism  that  had 
the  commandment  in  it.  It  is  as  if  a  man,  charged 
with  falsehood  in  a  particular  instance,  should  under- 
take to  answer  the  charge  by  showing  that  in  another 
instance  he  had  spoken  the  truth.  The  Catholics  are 
very  uneasy  to  get  rid  of  this  millstone  about  the  neck 
of  their  religion.  They  see  it  is  in  danger  of  sinking 
it.  But  they  cannot  slip  it  off  so  easy ;  and  if  they 
cannot  manage  to  swim  with  it,  it  must  sink  them. 
Well,  if  it  does,  and  nothing  but  the  system  goes  to 
the  bottom,  I  shall  not  be  sorry. 

In  the  course  of  his  letter,  Mr.  B.  speaks  of  "  the 
anarchical  principle  of  private  judgment."  And  is 
this  a  principle  which  leads  to  anarchy  ?  Paul  did 
not  seem  to  think  so.  He  says  :  "  Let  every  man  be 
fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  What  anarchy 
must  have  existed  in  the  Berean  church,  where,  after 


212  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

hearing  the  word,  they  "  searched  the  Scriptures  daily, 
whether  these  things  were  so !"  What  confusion 
there  must  have  been  where  all  read  and  thought 
for  themselves !  They  needed  an  Inquisitor  to  set 
things  to  rights.  He  is  the  man  to  mend  matters 
when  people  fall  to  "  searching  the  Scriptures."  Well, 
if  the  19th  century  will  tolerate  the  denunciation  of 
private  judgment  on  any  subject,  I  suppose  it  must  be 
so ;  but  I  cannot  say  Amen. 


58.    A  New  Method  of  Exciting  Devotion, 

There  seems  to  be  no  end  to  new  discoveries. 
Marching  mind  appears  to  have  no  idea  of  halting. 
Probably  improvements  will  go  on  until  the  world  it- 
self terminates.  What  should  I  see,  in  taking  up  the 
Observer  of  January  3d,  but  an  article  headed  "  Ca- 
thedral at  St.  Louis  ?"  Then  followed  a  description 
taken,  be  it  known,  not  from  any  scandalous  Protes- 
tant paper,  but  from  the  Catholic  Telegraph,  printed 
at  Cincinnati,  of  the  building,  altar,  &c.  By  the  way, 
the  altar  is  of  stone,  but  they  tell  us  this  is  only  tem- 
porary, and  will  soon  be  superseded  by  a  superb  mar- 
ble altar  which  is  hourly  expected  from  Italy.  Why 
go  all  the  way  to  Italy  for  an  altar  ?  Why  not  employ 
our  own  mechanics  and  artists?  We  have  marble 
enough  here,  and  men  enough.  But  I  suppose  it  is  a 
present.  Our  country  is  receiving  a  great  many  pre- 
sents now  from  abroad.  Foreign  Catholics  are  parti- 
cularly kind  to  us.  You  know  we  are  making  the 


THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY.  213 

great  experiment  whether  a  free,  representative  go- 
vernment can  sustain  itself;  and  our  Austrian  and 
Italian  brethren,  sympathizing  with  us,  want  to  help 
us  all  they  can.  They  mourn  especially  over  the  de- 
plorable lack  of  religion  in  this  country,  and  are  anx- 
ious to  supply  it.  Nor  is  it  in  building  and  furnishing 
churches  alone  that  they  are  disposed  to  help  us. 
They  cannot  bear  to  see  our  children  growing  up  in 
such  ignorance.  They  are  not  used  (they  would  have 
us  believe)  to  an  ignorant  population ;  and  then,  what 
is  to  become  of  the  republic  if  the  people  are  not 
educated?  So  they  come  from  Ireland,  France,  Italy, 
and  all  those  countries,  male  and  female,  to  educate 
us.  A  sceptical  person  might  be  tempted  to  ask  if  there 
is  nothing  of  the  kind  to  be  done  at  home — if,  for  exam- 
ple, they  cannot  find  any  uneducated  children  in  Ire- 
land, but  they  must  come  over  here  to  find  them.  How- 
ever that  be,  they  come.  But  what  strikes  me  with  won- 
der, is,  that  when  they  get  here,  they  are  all  for  educating 
Protestant  children.  Why  do  they  not  give  the  chil- 
dren of  Catholics,  their  own  people,  a  chance?  There 
are  many  of  them  scattered  over  the  land,  and  they 
are  not  all  self-taught.  I  should  like  to  have  this  ex- 
plained. Common  sense  suggests  that  there  must  be 
a  motive  for  making  this  distinction,  and  shrewdly 
suspects  it  is  proselytism.  Charity  waits  to  hear  if 
any  more  creditable  reason  can  be  assigned.  But  this 
is  digression. 

Well,  on  the  26th  of  October  the  grand  building 
was  consecrated.  The  procession  consisted  of  an  "  ec- 
clesiastical corps  "  amounting  to  fifty  or  sixty,  of  whom 
four  were  bishops,  and  twenty- eight  priests,  twelve  of 
whom  were  from  twelve  different  nations.  You  see 


214  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY. 

they  are  coming  upon  us  from  all  quarters.  It  would 
really  seem  as  if  all  Europe  was  conspiring  to  pour  in 
its  priests  among  us.  Here  are  priests  of  twelve  dif- 
ferent nations  met  at  St.  Louis !  Protestantism  has  to 
depend  for  its  men  and  money  on  native  Americans ; 
but  Popery,  you  perceive,  has  all  Europe  to  draw  upon. 
If,  with  this  advantage,  the  latter  religion  should  make 
considerable  progress  in  our  country,  we  must  not  be 
surprised.  Whether  this  influx  of  foreign  priests  au- 
gurs good  or  evil  to  our  free  institutions,  is  a  question 
on  which  I  will  express  no  opinion. 

I  come  now  to  the  novelty  which  suggested  the  title 
of  this  article — the  new  discovery — the  improvement  I 
spoke  of.  The  editor,  or  his  correspondent,  says,  "As 
soon  as  the  procession  was  organized,  the  pealing  of 
three  large  and  clear-sounding  bells,  and  the  thunder 
of  two  pieces  of  artillery,  raised  all  hearts,  as  well  as 
our  own,  to  the  Great  and  Almighty  Being."  Now  is 
not  this  something  new  ?  I  always  thought  bells  were 
to  call  people  together,  not  to  raise  them  up.  But  here 
he  says  they  raised  all  hearts.  However,  it  was  with 
the  help  of  the  thundering  artillery.  It  was  the  bells 
and  guns  together  that  did  it.  They  made  such  a  noise 
that  at  once  all  hearts  were  raised.  What  an  effect 
from  such  a  cause  !  Will  the  reader  please  to  consider 
what  was  done  and  what  did  it?  All  hearts  were 
raised  to  God  by  means  of  three  bells  and  two  guns ! 
Is  not  this  a  new  method  of  exciting  devotion  ?  Who 
ever  heard  before  of  noise  composing  the  mind  and 
preparing  it  for  devout  exercises  ?  According  to  this, 
the  fourth  of  July  should  be  the  day  of  all  others  in 
the  year  most  favorable  to  devotion.  And  what  a  ca- 
lamity deafness  now  appears  to  be ;  and  how  to  be 


THOUGHTS   ON   POPERY.  215 

pitied  they  are  who  lived  before  the  invention  of  gun- 
powder !  I  never  knew  before  that  this  was  among 
the  benefits  of  that  invention,  that  it  inspires  devo- 
tional feelings,  and  raises  hearts  on  high.  But  we 
must  live  and  learn. 

Well,  all  hearts  being  raised  as  before,  "  the  holy 
relics  (alias,  the  old  bones)  were  moved  towards  the 
new  habitation,  where  they  shall  enjoy  anticipated 
resurrection — the  presence  of  their  God  in  his  holy 
tabernacle."  What  this  means,  the  reader  must  find 
out  for  himself.  Now,  when  the  relics  were  moved, 
the  writer  tells  us  what  the  guns  did.  "  The  guns  fired 
a  second  salute."  They  could  not  contain  themselves. 
Neither  could  the  writer.  "  We  felt,"  says  he,  "  as  if 
the  soul  of  St.  Louis  was  in  the  sound."  A  soul  in  a 
sound !  Here  is  more  that  is  new. 

Then  we  are  told  who  preached  the  dedication  ser- 
mon ;  and  afterwards  we  are  informed,  for  our  edifica- 
tion, that  "  during  the  divine  sacrifice,  (the  Protestant 
reader,  perhaps,  does  not  know  what  is  meant  by  this 
phrase,  but  if  the  twelve  nations  continue  to  send  over 
their  priests,  we  shall  know  all  about  it  by  and  by,) 
two  of  the  military  stood  with  drawn  swords,  one  at 
each  side  of  the  altar ;  they  belonged  to  a  guard  of 
honor,  formed  expressly  for  the  occasion.  Besides 
whom,  there  were  detachments  from  the  four  militia 
companies  of  the  city,  the  Marions,  the  Greys,  the 
Riflemen,  and  the  Cannoniers  from  Jefferson  Barracks, 
stationed  at  convenient  distances  around  the  church." 
The  reader  will  not  forget  that  certain  professed  am- 
bassadors of  "  the  Prince  of  Peace "  were  here  en- 
gaged in  dedicating  a  church  to  his  service ;  and  this 
is  the  way  they  took  to  do  it.  If  they  had  been  conse- 


216  THOUGHTS    ON    POPERY* 

crating  a  temple  to  Mars^  I  don't  know  how  they  could 
have  selected  more  appropriate  ceremonies.  Here  were 
soldiers,  drawn  swords,  guns,  and,  as  we  shall  see 
presently,  colors  and  drums  too,  all  to  dedicate  a  church 
to  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus,  and  that  too  on  the  day 
of  rest ! 

One  more  quotation  from  this  glowing  description, 
"  When  the  solemn  moment  of  the  consecration  ap- 
proached, and  the  Son  of  the  living  God  was  going  to 
descend,  for  the  first  time,  into  the  new  residence  of 
his  glory  on  earth,  the  drums  beat  the  reveille,  three 
of  the  star-spangled  banners  were  lowered  over  the 
balustrade  of  the  sanctuary,  the  artillery  gave  a  deaf- 
ening discharge."  All  that  seems  to  have  been  want- 
ing here  was  three  cheers.  Those  would  have  been 
quite  as  suitable  as  the  other  accompaniments  of  the 
service.  Reader,  is  this  religion;  and  are  these  the 
things  which  are  pleasing  to  God  ? 

I  have  a  word  to  say  about  the  star-spangled  banner. 
That  is  an  ensign  endeared  to  every  American  heart. 
Whether  it  is  as  highly  esteemed  by  the  twelve  na- 
tions, I  cannot  say.  But  a  church  is  not  its  appro- 
priate place.  There  is  another  banner  which  should 
wave  there — and  that  is  not  slzi-spangled.  One  soli- 
tary star  distinguishes  it — the  star — the  star  of  Beth- 
lehem. Let  us  keep  these  things  separate :  under  the 
one,  go  to  fight  the  bloodless  battles  of  our  Lord — un- 
der the  other,  march  to  meet  our  country's  foes.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  American  Protestantism — no  union 
of  church  and  state,  and  no  interchange  of  their  ap- 
propriate banners. 


BOOKS 

PUBLISHED  AND  FOR  SALE   BY 

JOHN  S.  TAYLOR, 

THEOLOGICAL  AND  SUNDAY    SCHOOL  BOOKSELLER, 

BRICK  CHURCH  CHAPEL, 

'       CORNER   OF   PARK   ROW  AND  NASSAU   STREET, 

OPPOSITE    THE  CITY  HALL,   NEW  YORK. 


Hints  to  Parents  on  the  Early 
Religious  Education  of  Children. 

By  GARDINER  SPRING,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  the 
Brick  Presbyterian  Church,  New  York.  18mo. 
with  a  steel  engraving.  Price  37J  cents. 


From  the  New  York  Weekly  Messenger  and  Young  Men's  Advocate 

Dr.  Spring's  Hints  to  Parents. — One  of  the 
prettiest  little  works  of  this  class  that  we  have 
ever  met  with,  is  just  published;  it  is  called 
"  Hints  to  Parents  on  the,  Religious  Education 
of  Children.  By  Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D."  The 
author  has  been  long  and  fovorably  known  to  the 
public  as*a  chaste,  powerful,  and  popular  writer. 
The  subject  of  the  present  work  is  one  of  great 
moment — one  in  which  every  parent  has  a  real 
interest.  And  we  commend  this  little  volume, 
not  only  to  pious  parents,  but  to  all  who  desire  to 
bring  up  their  children  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
make  them  an  honor  to  themselves,  and  a  bless- 
ing to  their  fellow-men. 

From  the  Commercial  Advertiser. 

•  Hints  to  Parents,  on  the  Religious  Education 
of  Children.  By  Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D.  This 
beautiful  little  volume,  coming  out  at  this  time, 
will  be  peculiarly  acceptable  to  the  congregation 
of  the  able  and  excellent  author,  and  will  have 
the  effect  of  a  legacy  of  his  opinions  on  a  most 
important  subject,  now  that  for  a  time  they  are 
deprived  of  his  personal  instructions.  It  is  a 
work  that  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  parent 


throughout  our  country,  who  has  the  temporal 
and'eternal  interest  of  his  offspring  at  heart.  The 
few  and  leading  maxims  of  the  Christian  religion 
are  plainly  and  practically  enforced,  and  the  pa- 
rent's duties  are  descanted  on  in  a  train  of  pure 
and  beautiful  eloquence,  which  a  father's  mind, 
elevated  by  religion,  only  could  have  dictated. 
We  believe  that  a  general  knowledge  of  this  little 
volume  would  be  attended  with  consequences  be- 
neficial to  society,  since  a  practice  of  its  recom- 
mendations could  scarcely  be  refused  to  its  so- 
lemn and  affectionate  spirit  of  entreaty. 


The  Ministry  we  Need.    By  S.  H. 

Cox,  D.  D.,  and  others.  37J  cents. 

From  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review. 

This  neat  little  volume  comprises  the  inaugu- 
ral charge  and  address  which  were  delivered  on 
occasion  of  inducting  the  PROFESSOR  OF  SACRED 
RHETORIC  AND  PASTORAL  THEOLOGY  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Auburn.  The  friends 
of  Dr.  Cox  will  not  be  disappointed  in  his  inau- 
gural address.  It  bears  the  impress  of  his  ta- 
lents and  piety — his  enlarged  views  and  catholic 
spirit  To  analyze  it  would  convey  no  adequate 


idea  of  its  merits.  His  theme  is  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation — "the  chosen  medium  by  which 
God  conciliates  men — the  mighty  moral  engi- 
nery that  accomplishes  his  brightest  wonders — 
the  authentic  diplomacy  of  the  King  of  kings 
working  salvation  in  the  midst  of  the  earth." 
The  manner  in  which  he  treats  his  subject,  in"  re- 
lation to  the  importance  of  the  Christian  minis- 
try, and  the  kind  of  ministry  needed  in  this  age 
and  nation,  we  need  hardly  remark  will  amply 
repay  the  perusal  of  his  brethren,  if  not  be  inte- 
resting and  instructive  to  the  church  at  large. 

"  Error-scenting  notoriety  "  may  not  altogether 
like  the  odor  of  this  little  book ;  and  the  "  lynx- 
eyed  detecters  of  heresy  "  will  not  be  forward  to 
approve  a  work  in  which  they  are  handled  with 
unsparing  severity ;  but  by  "  all  the  favorers  on 
principle  of  a  pious,  sound,  educated,  scriptural, 
and  accomplished  ministry  in  the  church  of  God, 
and  throughout  the  whole  world,  as  the  MINISTRY 
WE  NEED,  to  whom  this  little  volume  is  most  re- 
spectfully inscribed,"  it  will  be  read,  and,  we  trust, 
circulated. 


The  Christian's  Pocket  Compa- 
nion.— Selected  from  the  works  of  JOHN  RO- 
GERS, Dr.  OWEN,  DAVID  BRAINERD,  PRESI- 
DENT EDWARDS,  and  others,  with  an  Introduc- 
tion by  Rev.  JOHN  BLATCHFORD,  of  Bridgeport, 
Conn.  25  cents. 

The  following  is  from  Mr,  Blatchford'i  Letter  to  the  Publisher  :— 

I  am  happy  to  learn,  through  your  letter  of 
last  evening,  your  design  of  publishing  the  little 
work  containing  the  private  rules  by  which  the 
lives  of  such  men  as  Edwards,  and  Brainerd,  and 
Rogers,  and  Mason,  were  regulated. 

That  little  volume  (which  is  the  only  copy  that 
I  have  ever  met  with)  was,  for  many  of  the  last 
years  of  his  life,  the  pocket-companion  of  my  hon- 
ored father,  the  late  Samuel  Blatchford,  D  D,  of 
Lansingburgh.  This  circumstance  alone  would 
give  it  a  value  in  my  estimation- — as  also  with 
the  many  who  were  associated  with  him  as  a  fa- 
ther in  the  ministry,  as  well  as  those  who  were 
permitted  to  receive  "  the  message  of  salvation 
from  his  lips." 

But  in  addition  to  this,  who  is  there  that  loves 
the  cause  of  Christ  and  the  souls  of  men  among 
the  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  our  day,  that 


6 

has  not  often,  amid  the  toils  and  discourage- 
ments and  anxieties  which  so  thickly  beset  their 
path,  turned  away  to  such  men,  and  inquired  the 
secret,  if  any  there  was,  by  which  they  accom- 
plished so  much  for  the  Church,  and  secured  to 
themselves  a  character  for  such  eminent  holiness  ? 
This  little  book  answers  these  questions,  and  in- 
troduces us  to  these  "  men  of  God,"  in  the  closet' 
in  the  family,  in  the  social  circle,  in  the  labors  of 
the  pulpit,  and  in  the  discharge  of  their  multi- 
plied parochial  duties ;  and  I  am  confident  that 
no  one  can  rise  from  its  perusal  without  being 
incited  to  more  prayer  and  more  diligence  in  their 
varied  efforts  to  adorn  the  "  doctrines  of  Christ 
their  Savior"  themselves,  and  in  preaching  Christ 
and  him  crucified  to  others. 

Wishing  you  all  success  in  your  undertaking, 
I  would  most  fervently  commend  it  to  the  bless- 
ing of  God,  believing  that  in  giving  it  to  the  pub- 
lic, you  will  greatly  subserve  the  best  of  causes, 
and  in  a  very  acceptable  manner. 

JOHN  BLATCHFORD. 

From  the  New  York  Observer. 

Christian's  Pocket- Companion. — This  very 
small  but  neat  manual,  just  published,  is  a  com- 


pilation  of  some  of  the  purest  sentiments  and  ho- 
liest aspirations  of  such  men  as  Owen,  Rogers, 
Brainerd,  and  President  Edwards.  We  venture 
to  say  that  no  Christian  can  make  it  the  familiar 
companion  of  his  heart,  as  well  as  "pocket," 
without  becoming  evidently  a  holier  and  a  hap- 
pier man. 

Pleasure  and  Profit,  vol.  1,  or  THE 
MUSEUM.  By  Uncle  Arthur.  87J  cents. 

Pleasure  and  Profit,  vol.  2,  or  THE 
BOY'S  FRIEND.  By  Uncle  Arthur.  37  1-2  cents. 

Pleasure  and  Profit,  vol.  3,  or  MARY 
AND  FLORENCE.  By  Uncle  Arthur.  37|  cents. 

Missionary  Remains,  or  SKETCHES 
OF  EVARTS,  CORNELIUS,  AND  WISNER.  By 
Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D.  and  others.  37J  cents. 

Advice  to  a  Brother.  By  a  Mission- 
ary. 31  cents. 

Life  Of  Cowper.  By  himself.  37£  cents. 


8 

Early  Piety.  By  Rev.  Jacob  Abbott. 
18|  cents. 

Scripture  Gems.  Morocco,  gilt.  25 
cents. 

Sermons  by  Rev.  Charles  G.  Finney. 
With  a  Portrait.  $1  00. 

The  Works  of  Rev/  Daniel  A. 
Clark.  In  three  volumes.  $3  00. 

Practical  Thoughts.  By  the  late  Dr. 
Nevins,  of  Baltimore.  50  cents. 

Thoughts  on  Popery.  By  Dr.  Ne- 
vins. 50  cents. 

A  View  of  the  American  Slavery 
Question.  By  E.  P.  Barrows,  Pastor  of  the 
First  Free  Presbyterian  Church.  31 J  cents. 

"  Evening  Melodies."  A  collection 
of  Sacred  Music,  Original  and  Selected,  adapted 
to  Social  and  Public  worship,  by  Abner  Jones. 
FifthE  dition,'enlarged  and  improved.  37|  cents. 


A  constant  supply  of  the  Publications  of  the 
Massachusetts  Sabbath  School  Society,  the  Amer- 
ican Sunday  School  Union,  and  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Sunday  School  Union,  at  the  same 
prices  as  sold  at  their  respective  Depositories. 

J.  S.  T.  has  also  a  large  and  choice  selection 
of  Miscellaneous  works,  suitable  for  Sunday 
School  Libraries ;  together  with  Theological, 
Classical,  Moral,  and  Religious  Books,  Station- 
ary, &c.  all  of  which  he  will  sell  at  the  lowest 
prices. 


10 

Also  Publisher  of 

The  National  Preacher,  printed  in 
an  elegant  pamphlet  form,  each  number  contain^ 
ing  two  Sermons  from  living  Ministers.  Month- 
ly. Edited  by  Rev.  Austin  Dickinson.  Price 
one  dollar  a  year  in  advance. 

Also  Agent  for 

The  Sabbath  Sehool  Visiter,  pub- 
lished  by  the"  Massachusetts  Sabbath  School  "So- 
ciety. Edited  by  Rev.  Asa  Bullard,  Boston. 
50  cents. 

Also  Agent  for 

The  Missionary  Herald.  Published 
for  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions.  Monthly.  $1  50  a  year. 

Also  Publisher  of 

The  Naval  Magazine.  Edited  by  the 
Rev.  S.  Stewart,  M.  A.  of  the  U.  S.  Navy.  $3  00 
a  year,  payable  in  advance. 


11 

'  N.  B.  Orders  from  the  country  will  be  im- 
mediately attended  to,  and  books  forwarded  ac- 
cording to  directions.  Should  the  selection  of 
books  for  Sunday  Schools  be  left  with  J.  S.  T., 
and  he  should  forward  any  which  should  not  suit 
the  purchaser,  they  may  be  returned,  and  the  mo- 
ney will  be  refunded,  or  other  books  given  in  ex- 
change. Those  wishing  to  purchase,  are  invited 
to  call  and  examine  his  stock. 


M 


14  DAY  USE 

:ETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

•  •  M  rx    *    O    *^**r»    ^-^    A 


ibject  t 

£4- 


LD  21  A-fiOm.in  ' 


General  Library 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


